vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
&gt;And where pray tell would all the cash come from?  Tax rich people and corporations  &gt;Surely you can't be stupid enough to think that money created endlessly as needed  I didn't say that.  You did.  You fucking stupid internet-libertarian.  Great strawman btw.  &gt;Government employees, including legislators and professional politicians, should not receive special benefits merely because they happen to be bureaucratic leeches on the public teat.  See my previous comment.  But anyway you go ahead and pretend that making other people's existence shittier will help you.  I'm sure you're a self-made billionaire that's never required anything from anyone.  lol.  Just kidding.  Like every other piece of shit that subscribes to this subreddit I'm sure you're posting from your mom's basement right.  Hey do her and us a favor and kill yourself already.  tia.
&gt;  But, walmart pays way more than what it's employees are using.  Most employers pay more than their employees are using.  What is your point?  You actually think $7.1B went directly into welfare, or do you think that just maybe some of it went to pay for the military, debt payments, etc?  &gt; You don't like big business.   Nice strawman.    &gt; so no cost at all is passed to the taxpayers  This is like saying if i get a 99% credit on my taxes, i have paid my fair share.  I mean i paid more than i took out of the system.  That's fair right!
My job cut everyone's hours to 30 (it was 40-45) so they could avoid it. Luckily I'm still under 25 so I'm able to get under my dads health plan. I'll be over the age limit next December so I plan on picking up a side gig. Maybe she can consider her parents plan or a side gig?  Sorry to hear about her predicament. It's a funked up situation.
Doesn't matter.  What concerns me is the potential, since it is very plausible that at some time in the near future the Feds will need to be violently fought by the citizens of the USA in order to correct the deviation of their allegiance.
Why should the costs of mandatory services be based on a sliding scale? Why shouldn't everyone pay the exact same price for the same services? Would it be fair if you walked into a McDonalds and everyone was lined up based on income with everyone below a certain level expecting everyone above the line to pay their way?   Edit. If you were on the side of the line that was subsidized would you vote to end the subsidies or vote for policies that add more people to the side that gets free things so you can continue to get free things?
When you enter your expected gross income into the worksheet - just enter $360000 and leave everything else as is. That should give you the right numbers. Same for State (form DE-4).
"&gt;When one says that ""corporations are people"", in a legal sense, they are saying that they have the ability to enter into binding legal agreements in a manner similar to people.   I would never use the words ""corporations are people"" to describe this. Corporations are legal structures given a legal status by government to facilitate the cooperation of labor, production and capital. By having this legal status provided by government, they can establish contracts and enforce them. In return, the corporation is subject to regulations and laws established by Government.   The simple fact of the matter is that if Government didn't have the authority to provide certain legal statuses to corporations, corporations wouldn't exist. As such, the relationship between corporations and government is symbiotic rather than adversarial (which the current Republican party seems to think - all we hear is how bad government is for business when businesses would not even exist without it). We the People control the government. If we wanted to, we could nationalize every corporation in this country and end capitalism as we know it. We basically did this in 2008 with the banks when capitalism was on it's death bed. Corporations can live or die by the hand of Government.    That doesn't sound like a process in which one concludes: ""corporations are people, my friends"".   &gt;If they are using it in any sense other than the legal sense, it's either hyperbole, ignorance, or pandering.  Romney never clarified what he meant by that statement and given the state of his campaign - one has to wonder.   &gt;Now, if you set yourself up as LettersFromTheSky, Inc  I have started my own business, I can confirm that my personal expenses (to keep me alive) such as food, car maintenance, rent, etc were not tax deductible but yet my day to day business expenses (to keep it alive) such as paper, wages, equipment, etc were.   Edit: Basically, I'm just trying to say that the tax code treats corporations and people totally different. As such, ""corporations are people, my friends"" is demonstrably false."
"&gt;I'm not going to engage you in a philosophical debate about corporations vs. people.  Corporations are legal structures given a legal status by government to facilitate the cooperation of labor, production and capital. In return for this, corporations are subject to regulations and laws. They are not people. This is something ""corporations are people, my friends"" needs to learn.   &gt;P.S. Not taxing losses is hardly corporate welfare and GE did not get a tax ""refund.""  So where did they get that money from? Where do you think that $3.4billion came from? Do you think that $3.4billion just magically appeared out of thin air? Do you think GE invented a tree that grows money?   That $3.4billion came from taxpayers/US Treasury because GE carried over losses - as such it was refund."
As it should be.  Taxes are theft.  No one faults a traveler for taking a different route because one is known to be rife with criminals.  Businesses build jobs, strengthen economies, provide value.  Governments take by force, waste, abuse, and use their revenue to build armies and violate rights.  The bad they do (including the initial act of theft) far outweighs any good.
There are different types of businesses, Microsoft is a public corporation which means it is owed by shareholders, not bill gates himself. The money Bill Gates has is not all cash, it is valued by the stock he owns in different companies.  Other businesses may be limited liability meaning the owner may not be liable for losses on the business, but the money earned by the business is kept for business use only.
I think you have some misplaced anger.  Trickle down economics would say that your tax burden should be lower.   You have a high tax burden not because of trickle down economics, but because politicians have voted in high corporate taxes in this country.  The big corporations are just good at avoiding paying those taxes in the first place.
I wonder if this comment would be better under a conspiracy. But you know the banks can claim your income tax for payment of your college loans, and that the government is increasing how much you can get back on your income tax. Basically, isn't that just to get government money and giving it to the big banks?
"if corporations can claim ""personhood"", could citizens claim they are corporations and evade taxes in this way, avoiding penalties as Burger King is doing, coming out far ahead financially?  whats good for the goose should be good for the gander"
There is no tax to move your own money from one place to another.
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.cato.org/blog/labors-share-gdp-wrong-answers-wrong-question) reduced by 93%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Labor&amp;#039;s share of the CBO&amp;#039;s broadly-defined household income also fell because the share devoted to transfers rose, but also because the share moved from corporate to household accounts also rose.  &gt; Business income counted within CBO&amp;#039;s household income has increased its share of such income since the Tax Reform Act of 1986, but that just reflects a change in organizational form from C-Corporation to pass-through status.  &gt; Labor&amp;#039;s share of personal income fell mainly because the share devoted to government transfer payments rose.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/79ph4o/labors_share_of_gdp_wrong_answers_to_a_wrong/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~237805 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*: **income**^#1 **Share**^#2 **Labor**^#3 **GDP**^#4 **capital**^#5"
"The bank provides a service that the customer voluntarily agreed to - the bank will provide funds to the customer now and the customer will pay back those funds plus interest in the future.  The arragement wasn't forced onto the customer. The government, on the other hand, takes money (the exchange is not volutary) from people to provide a ""service"".  This frustrates a lot of people - myself included - since people do not have a choice.  They must pay the taxes or go to jail (or have their house confisicated, wages garnished, etc.).  It gets even more frustrating when the government takes money from the people and gives it to the banks, auto companies, insurance companies, etc.."
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-tax-plan-details-corporate-rate-individual-brackets-deductions-cuts-2017-9) reduced by 87%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; &amp;quot;After years of work, we are moving forward with a unified framework that paves the way for bold, transformational tax reform - tax reform that will bring more jobs, fairer taxes, and bigger paychecks,&amp;quot; Brady said in a statement.  &gt; While there is no precise number in the plan, officials have indicated the rate could end up somewhere around 10%. Personal tax changes: A bottom individual tax rate of 12%. The plan specifies three tax brackets, with the lowest rate being 12%. That would represent a slight bump in the bottom bracket, which is now 10%. People currently in the 15% marginal tax bracket would most likely be included here.  &gt; &amp;quot;An additional top rate may apply to the highest-income taxpayers to ensure that the reformed tax code is at least as progressive as the existing tax code and does not shift the tax burden from high-income to lower- and middle-income taxpayers,&amp;quot; the plan reads.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/72ves8/gop_tax_plan_overview/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~217749 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 **rate**^#2 **plan**^#3 **bracket**^#4 **deduction**^#5"
You're making a political argument out of a mathematical truism.  There is no difference between getting paid $100 more per month and having something that you routinely pay for become $100 per month cheaper for you.  In both cases you have $100 more surplus income.  There may be a slight difference in taxation and other finer details, but all things being equal it's the same thing.
"&gt;most tax incentives are not a literal, real-time transfer of money from the tax payers to the corporations.  But they ARE in fact exactly that, they are just not DIRECT transfers.  &gt;I have had quite a few discussions with people about this and some folks think that their tax dollars are literally being transferred form their paycheck withholdings to a company's bank account and that is not exactly true.  No, it is not *technically* true -- but in the end, it IS ultimately more true than you are attempting to characterize it.  If someone scatters poison onto ground, grows plants that they know will take up that toxin, feeds the resulting grain to a chicken, and then serves the chicken to his guests, he is not DIRECTLY poisoning his guests... but in fact he still is poisoning them.  ---  Go reread Bastiat (or Hazlitt) on the ""Seen versus the Unseen""."
There are lots of thing that people will pay for if you wait long enough.  I don't know that I would consider them investments, but they go up in value.
Tax won't be an issue. You have a personal tax free allowance of £7475 this coming year, so your first £7475 will be tax free. 1.09% is pretty abysmal (sorry - but we've wrecked the economy for you young fullas), so you'll only earn about £84 a month. Not as awesome as you were expecting I think. Would recommend getting advice on other means of generating an income with your 100k. Because if you bought a cheap flat (cheap enough to own without a mortgage), you could probably earn between £300-£400 a month fairly comfortably. (I'm not suggesting you become a landlord, just that interest rates currently suck)
"Taxing the money people earn from others without doing work is no more punishment than taxing people who earn money by working.  It's not a matter of who's wrong, but what's fair and what makes a healthy prosperous economic system.  I don't think this will do that, but crying ""what did the rich ever do to deserve taxes"" is a ridiculous argument."
&gt;a large amount of tax leaves the countryside and gets sucked into the cities.  I don't live in the US so could you elaborate why that is the case? As far as I am aware, it's an almost universal law that most prosperous places become net contributors and subsidises poorer areas.
Yes, but, that math is still inconsistent.   . . . . . . . If you haven't figured out, I'm just messing with you.  :D   But, to answer your question.  The highest GDP is not being even accessed by all members of our nation.  Hence, some people are living a top 1st world nation, some are in moderate 2nd level nation; while a good chunk are living as though they are in a 3rd world/developing nation.
Well $100k is approximately the 80th percentile. So it's doing pretty well.   But perhaps [this website](https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/politics/tax-breaks/?utm_term=.4cd4ec597815) will show how much SALT deductions benefit the rich. Just move the dial over to the $1M mark and suddenly your biggest deduction is state and local taxes.
Taxes should not be calculated at the item level. Taxes should be aggregated by tax group at the summary level. The right way everywhere is LINE ITEMS SUMMARY PS:If you'd charge at the item level, it would be too easy to circumvent the law by splitting your items or services into 900 items at $0.01 (Which once rounded would mean no tax). This could happen in the banking or plastic pellets industry.
You will pay taxes in both states!!! Where you bought the ticket as soon as you claim it.  and your residence state at the end of the year! Its called state Income Tax.
You're trying to attribute the current economic climate and the decisions that stem from that with raising tax rates. And the US will continue to have tax loopholes (not that that is actually the reason that high tax rates didn't kill productivity).        Again, the real world examples don't agree with your bookworm ideas.
Didn't they try to collect taxes and your fellow Californians screamed bloody murder? Ironically, most will also bitch about the recent gov't layoffs and lack of schools but will be damned if they'll pay one cent more in taxes... Yay for direct democracy in action.
This is part of the problem with states not being able to set import taxes.  Companies can shop around for better tax breaks with impunity.  Since an actual state tariff system would be unwieldy (as well as unconstitutional) the states need to figure out a better solution.
You can view certain US economic data with FRED Graph or download the data to play with FRED download. Here is some example tax data:
most anybody would reverse  8 years with Timmy 'The Tax Cheat' Geithner plus Yellen with no rates increases (just decreases) ...then **SUDDENLY** with Trump as POTUS 3 raises, 1-2 more coming this year alone, plans for 3+ next year  all that = **WTF**
The Laffer curve is taught in like the first week of a macro Econ class. You could raise the tax rates to 99% and still collect less tax revenue than if they are at a reasonable rate. But of course there's no mention of that. So I'm gonna go out on a limb and call it what it really is: ideologues championing their agendas.
&gt; Taxation is theft.  No, and [we've already gone down this road](https://www.reddit.com/r/economy/comments/6leb2o/missouri_republicans_lower_st_louis_minimum_wage/dju1jjp/).  Are you familiar with US history and the time they had the [Articles of Confederation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation)?  I would be curious to know why you think it failed.
Yeah, that would make sense; if they corporations started offshore.  However, they started on U.S. soil; as such, don't you think they should pay their fair share for such an awesome environment (security, opportunity, technology) the U.S. provides in the first place?
"&gt; a provocation of ""the unwashed masses"".  In 1944, FDR put a **94%** marginal tax on anyone earning more than $23,000 (that's $400k in today's terms). plus a **70%** corporate tax. This led to the great american boom where we got all our infrastructure in the 50s and 60s. That's when America was ""great"".   &gt; the American Dream is strong  it's actually well and truly over. the rot started in the mid 70s, and is now dead. there is a joke that they call it the ""American Dream"" because you would have to be asleep to believe it. watch this excellent documentary - trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyFSvnLnCZ0  edit: if you have more time, here in full: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIgebDs6PoM"
Having taxes in USD gives the USD intrinsic value.  The US government already fights any attempt to have the petrodollar undermined (foreign exchanges that trade oil in currency other than USD).  It will have to exactly 0 interest in undermining itself by accepting anything but USD in taxes.
Most places have property taxes so I'd be shocked if the UK didn't.  If people didn't have to pay income/VAT/sales taxes then they would be able to afford the higher property taxes.  It is probably true enough though that the government is likely to not raise as much revenue (though that isn't guaranteed: more efficient taxation collection combined with more objective/simple rules for business is likely to increase real economic growth).  As a person who thinks government has expanded well beyond what is good for society however, I see the shrinking of government as a good thing.
What is tax slavery? Most impacted by higher taxes can afford to put them in off shore accounts.   This going to hurt the economy because businesses aren't going to higher more people. Trickle down economics consistently fails.  You'll have a bunch of owners saving the profits instead of giving the jobs because most of them are already operating efficiently.  Especially in a state where menial labor is the most common form.  Tax Slavery is a bullshit term to justify the rich robbing the government of their due while being able to benefit from the clout that comes with being American.
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452069/state-local-tax-deductions-federal-taxes-trump-tax-reform-state-income-tax-real-estate-tax-california) reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; The plan would eliminate the deductibility of state and local income taxes for federal tax purposes.  &gt; Like the mortgage-interest deduction, which the Trump plan unfortunately keeps, the deduction for state and local taxes was intended to be a benefit to the middle class, i.e., the salt-of-the-earth voters who simultaneously are strongly in favor of an active welfare state and strongly disinclined to pay for it.  &gt; Offsetting state income taxes encourages states to jack up their levies: Because some costs are passed on to the federal treasury, Sacramento can get $1 in state income-tax revenue at a real cost to California taxpayers of less than $1. That&amp;#039;s back-door tax-code welfare for big-spending Democrats.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/73pca8/a_conservative_tax_hike/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~220318 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*: **state**^#1 **taxes**^#2 **federal**^#3 **tax**^#4 **income**^#5"
"I suppose for the simple minded it is. ""Less taxes = less revenue = oh no, disaster!"". Which may be true for a small state budget that is often strapped for cash and struggling to get by. Cut revenue at the state level and vital programs suffer.   The federal government on the other hand is a behemoth. It has a lot more sources of revenue than states do. It also has more programs and waste that can be cut, before even considering cuts to social services and entitlement programs, like regulatory agencies.  Down vote me all you want but I find it preferable to have tax money in the hands of citizens and businesses rather than the government. The more money you give to government the more they're going to spend."
&gt; You could raise the tax rates to 99% and still collect less tax revenue than if they are at a reasonable rate.  It is funny how Republicans insist raising taxes produces no more revenue and then insist lowering taxes saves people money.
I believe Amazon is being forced to collect sales tax in several states now or soon. Newegg probably will be as well. The gravy train of no tax on the internet is going away, probably entirely within a few years. :/
Yea, so they mention household and income....Am I supposed to count both my spouse income and my own? Because if that's true...then I'm part of the 1% at 27, yet it sure as shit doesn't feel like it.
I would talk to your HMRC tax office they do have guidance on this issue here  http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/working/intro/employed-selfemployed.htm
"If you earn $160 a week for 26 weeks, are unable to claim yourself, have no other income at all, you will earn $4,160, which falls under the standard deduction, in your case a bit over $4,500; per publication 17, it is $350 above your earned income, to a maximum of $6300 as of 2016.  (H/t Hart CO for the reminder.) In that case, if you paid no taxes (at all) last year (either did not file or filed and had 0 tax paid, so got a 100% refund), you could legitimately claim ""exempt"" by writing that on line 7.   However, you would be very close to owing taxes, so if you have any unearned income (interest from bank accounts, dividends from your non-sheltered college fund, etc.), you would possibly owe taxes.  You're also going to owe taxes if you have another ~$2150 of earned income from any other source (including things like mowing lawns, tutoring, etc.). Keep all of that in mind if you have any other sources of income other than the above."
"Assuming U.S. law, there are ""safe harbor"" provisions for exactly this kind of situation. There are several possibilities, but the most likely one is that if your withholding and estimated tax payments for 2016 totaled at least as much as your tax bill for 2015 there's no penalty. For the full rules, see IRS Publication 17."
If you expect your taxes to be higher next year, it saves you the trouble of sending estimates or changing the withholding levels. But yes, its basically a free loan you're giving to the government.
You lose your job your pension your way of life so you can go buy shit at Wal-Mart made by communist Chinese slave labor and save $50 a month while you get the new job at minimum wage as a greeter - hey Wal-Mart FUCK YOU!!!
BI tapers off as you earn more. It's means tested by the tax department. Getting rid of the welfare means testing and fraud apparatus entirely. Depending on behaviour BI could save money on the current system. Especially as now there would be an explosion of fairly risk free freelancing.
Good. Put more people out of work. Then we might actually get something like a basic income. We won't skip the discomfort but we can hopefully move through it quickly rather than a slow monotonous march on blistered feet.