vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"Yes. Your original fucking comment was that taxation and paying taxes is *moral*. Not that it is reality. If you had said ""We have to pay taxes as it stands now and if we don't we'll get thrown in jail."" I would have agreed.  But you waxed poetic about how it's the good, wholesome, moral thing to do. That is what I took issue with.  Do not make points if you refuse to defend them."
Holy fuck how do you not understand that the government is responsible for the tax code, and all the changes to the tax code, and therefore wholly responsible for incorporating any changes that corporations ask for?   Goddamn you have to be retarded to try to exonerate the government and blame corporations for something corporations have no power over.
It's like collecting car insurance when you've had an accident.  If you want a good analogy it's like having an accident and then some asshole reporter claims it's unfair that the policy paid for it because you made more than some arbitrary amount of money last year.
"&gt; Another victim of the robber.   You are definitely the victim of something...  &gt; You are defending robbery.   You likened it to robbery. I did not. Matter of fact, I believe my prior statement was that taxes are patriotic and our duty. I file mine right on time. The tax man doesn't even have to come to my door to ""rob"" me, because I already mailed him a check. You likened it to robbery, yet you bend over and give it up anyways... Kind of sad really."
Getting a high refund means you misplanned all year, and lent Uncle Sam money at zero interest(1). And yet you feel good about getting $3000 back in April. (Disclosure - when my father in law passed away, I took over my mother in law's finances. Her IRA RMD, and taxes. First year, I converted some money to Roth, and we had a $100 tax bill. Frowny face on mom. Since then, I have Schwab hold too much federal tax, and we always get about $100 back. This makes her happy, and I'll ignore the 27 cents lost interest.) (1) - I need to acknowledge that there are cases where the taxpayer has had zero dollars withheld, yet receives a 'tax refund.' The earned income tax credit (EITC) produces a refundable benefit, i.e. a payment that's not conditional on tax due. Obviously, those who benefit from this are not whom I am talking about. Also, in response to a comment below, the opportunity cost is not the sub-1% rate the bank would have paid you on the money had you held on to it. It's the 18% card you should be paying off. That $3000 refund likely cost over $400 in the interest paid over the prior year.
You pay in advance - and there are no refunds.  I bought a van last fall, and paid no property tax on it, because it was already covered through whatever end date the registration had.  I will pay taxes on it this year, though (presuming I still have it).
Some of the deductions that are only available as payroll deductions are: There are other deductions you can take if you qualify such as HSA or IRA contributions without any employer help.
Gambling losses are only offset by winnings. Those losses can't offset other income. So, the guy that wins the $1M jackpot can deduct the $100 he spent on tickets that year.
The auction starts. While you go around distributing the money, the first guy manages to buy 2 items at $10 each. Now, there is $480 in the market, and only 8 items, making each item $60 on average. The next guy to get money manages to snap 2 items at $15. 6 items left and $450 in play. Each item now costs $75....and keep increasing in price as things move along. People who get the money early buy items under their real value, and people who get paid at the end pick up the tab, because by then, there are only a few items left. Back to reality, while inflation means that wages eventually increase (and they do), actual purchasing decrease for most people due to this simple trick. Employees are pretty much at the end of the chain. Income tax Another major source of ""signal loss"" is income tax. It works by brackets, as you certainly know. Simplifying again because I am lazy: Take a guy who earns $100. Pays no taxes. Can buy 100 products at $1 each. Now, put in some inflation... He earns $500. He pays $50 in taxes and can buy 90 products at $5 each. By the time he earns $10,000, he can only buy 50 products on account of income tax. So this is another area where you are bleeding purchasing power, and why income tax, which was originally presented as a tax for the ultra-rich is now a fact of life for most people (except the ultra-rich, of course). Money as debt Next stop: Money itself. Money is created as debt in our society. At the risk of over-simplifying things again, let's say Bank A has $1000 in assets. In the fractional reserve system (our current system), Bank A can lend out many times over that amount. Let's say $9,000, for a total of $10,000 (much more in reality). And of course, it lends that money at interest.
[Eliminating breaks **would allow the government to simplify the tax code and broaden the base of income** against which taxes are levied] [The dilemma—which Republicans are colliding with right now—is that many of the biggest tax breaks, especially for individuals, are **popular and hard to dislodge.**]
Be ruthlessly meticulous about the IRS regulations for deducting a home office.  If it's allowed, it's allowed.
But is the money saved taxable? Not sure I understand the Question. If say you have salary of Rs 5 Lacs, after paying taxes and expenses, lets say you save Rs 1 lacs. If you keep this 1 lacs in savings account. You will get interest. If this interest is less than Rs 10,000/- it is not taxable. If it is more that Rs 10,000 then the additional amount is taxable. i.e. if you get a savings bank interest of Rs 15,000/- the difference Rs 15,000 minus Rs 10,000; i.e. Rs 5000 is taxable. Note if you keep the 1 lacs in Fixed Deposits, then all interest even if you get Rs 1 is taxable. Edit: If you invest the Rs 1 lacs in Tax Saving FD [lock-in period of 6 years], then Yes. You can claim deduction under section 80C.
"Furthermore, the ""trust fund"" the article talks about doesn't really exist - they SSAdmin just owns treasury bills, which as we all know are obligations of the U.S. government.  So - in order to exhaust the ""trust fund"" you have to expect the U.S. treasury to repay the SSAdmin in full - which we can debate about whether that is a fair assumption or not."
&gt;So, we agree then.  No, Unemployment is not insurance paid for by the worker. We do not agree on that.   Apparently we agree on the fact that is not illegal.   &gt;So, what?  This is why there should be qualifications and tests much like those proposed for social security. Especially since the employee doesn't actually pay for any of it. If you are making millions of dollars and still can't figure out to create an 'Oh shit' savings account, well looks like you are SOL.
Would that be the same retirement funding requirements that every business has to fulfill by law?  Oh right, they should be free to completely screw their retirement programs like CalPers and Illinois by under investing and assuming they will get 8% returns every year.
Yes, it is normal. I'm single & pay 32% in North Carolina. Single men & married people ask me all the time why it's so high and it gets frustrating having to explain to average people. I assume it's because I have no kids, live alone, don't own a house, am not in school, am not self employed etc. I've been at this job for 10 years and it's been over 30% since I can remember.
While this seems drastic, and there could be a lot of different things that happen by that time, it's a decent illustration. While the website provided certainly isn't validated by the DoE, I have read multiple articles about this, and they are all very similar. Again, other things could happen between now and your child's college career, but if college becomes ""free"" we're paying for it, and if it's not free and raises at historical rates you're paying for it. I also don't really want to comment on what is going to happen with taxes over the years, I'm not sure where you live (I'm in the U.S.), but IMO I believe they either A) won't change or B) will raise slightly. As far as SS goes, I think it's fair and definitely more than reasonable to not expect SS in retirement. I'm definitely not counting on it."
&gt; It makes sense for EVERYONE to pay their fair and equal share.  Totally agree.  Don't you agree that a fair an equal share for someone working full time for the system is at least a modest but complete life within the system?
"An unmarried person with a total U.S.-sourced earned income under $ 37,000 during the year 2016 is likely to owe: If the original poster is not an ""independent contractor"", and is not ""billing corp-to-corp"" then: In summary: References:"
So we just need to increase revenue.  There's plenty of cash in the USA.  High line condos and Ferrari sports cars are flying off the shelf where I live.  People can't get their fill of them.   Somehow that does not jibe with the notion that the USA can't afford to take care of its elderly, does it?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-illinois-budget-medicaid-decision-met-20170630-story.html  Courts can mandate all the way, but states aren't able to print money, yet.  Push comes to shove, the state laws will get amended.  In my experience, this seems to be the order of who gets shafted, chronologically and from most to least:  1) current and future taxpayers, both with rising taxes and reduced services 2) vendors 3) pensioners 4) bondholders
"Wow. You are fucking retarded.... UBI is bullshit and not going to happen (thankfully) and ""job theater"" is a tucking bullshit term that I've never heard before and never wish to hear again. You millennial are way too fucking innocent. The world owes you fucking zilch. You are entitled to nothing. A functioning society does not pay people money ""just because"". If you don't contribute to society then you deserve nothing. You've actually just shown why bigger government is fucking stupid. These people do nothing for society yet they would work in some ""job theater"" bullshit organization. Why not just cut out the middleman and give them money without making them ""work""? And of course there would be a *massive* government agency running this sham that would have a massive budget. You people are fucking retarded and need to learn some basic econ. Bernie is a lying cuck."
Actually, SS the young pay for the old, hoping the our populations increased indefinitely. It is, for all purposed, EXACTLY the definition of a Ponzi.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme  You just have to be a tad more intelligent to realize its the same with the Fed.
Title is overblown.    FTA:  &gt; Citing the fine print on Social Security projected-income statements that explains by 2034 **there will only be enough money to meet 79% of the obligation**, Mr. Beagle tells clients between ages 50 and 60 to not count on more than 75% of their projected benefit  Social security won't disappear.  It might be cut by 20% to 25%, if Congress does nothing.
It's past midnight so we'll continue this tomorrow.   Just two things for now: 1 funny how you picked the highest estimate for the US and the lowest estimate for the UK  2 if anyone expresses wishful thinking it's you. None of the benefits you mentioned will happen. I live in a country with UH. You'll still have the same problems, except that you get a hefty tax increase on top and end up shoving 50-60% of your income down the state's throat in addition.
"Take a look at any king; they got to do what they wanted with the state money which pretty much always included attacking their enemies using their fortunes which look very much like ordinary people's taxes.    Don't like that?  How about the renaissance city-states.  They hired private armies -- the Swiss mainly -- who then decided which side had paid the most money, that side won.    Explicitly, There's also the Roman late republic, where private armies battled for just about a century, killing about 1/3 of the men.    Really, though, what does ""private army"" mean?  There are taxpayers and taxpayers.  Your security will have to be handled somehow.  Do you think calling something a ""fee"", perhaps, changes the fundamental nature of the payment?  Do you imagine that you can live outside of society, not pay the ""fee"" and somehow be safe?  Again, explicitly, how are you going to handle security?"
Now that the Affordable Care Act (ACA a.k.a Obamacare) has been enacted, it is now simpler to get health insurance, and it is actually required you have some. Hopefully, your employer will offer health coverage, you can find reasonably priced coverage on your own, or you live in a state with a health exchange. Even if you can't otherwise get/afford insurance, you may qualify for some sort of state coverage depending on income. If you don't have some sort of health insurance (private or otherwise), the IRS can potentially fine you when you file your taxes. Not to be too scary, but the fine as currently proposed is jumping up to about $700 for individuals in 2016 or so. So... even if you don't grab health insurance (which you absolutely should), you need to save about $60 a month, even if just for the fine. This answer turned out a bit longer than intended, but hopefully it will help you a little bit. Welcome to the wonderful world of adult financial responsibility. :-)"
If virtually everyone goes for an annual checkup, and that checkup costs per policy are say $300 a year, then how can premiums NOT go up by approximately $300 (+ administration costs)? Did they expect the money to pay those things to magically appear out of nowhere? Seriously; you demand something and eventually (one way or another) you are going to pay for it. --- So in your father and grandfathers eras, they were able to support a larger family in no small part because they were NOT paying for all of those ""safety net"" things. In addition, for what little ""safety net"" *did exist* at the time, the people collecting on it were [demographically tiny versus the larger working/paying class](http://www.ssa.gov/history/ratios.html) (i.e. in 1940 each retiree on social security was ""supported"" by nearly 160 workers; by 1950 the ratio was a tenth of that 1 retiree supported by 16 workers; by 1965 it was a quarter of that {1/40th of the 1940 ratio}, 1 retiree to 4 workers; and currently {2009} it is a 1 to 3 ratio {and set to get a LOT worse as the ""Baby Boomer Bulge"" retires en masse in the coming decade+}.) So basically, your single income job still IS supporting a large ""family"" -- you just aren't supporting them *directly* any more {instead you pay the government, and they get checks ""from the government""}; and the ""family"" you are supporting is probably NOT biologically related to you (i.e. they are someone *else's* kids, parents, etc). And then, just as importantly, since you are no longer *directly* supporting a large family, YOU have essentially ZERO control over the hows/whens/whys of how the money gets spent (whereas your father and grandfather DID get to decide) -- instead the monies are being tossed as ""entitlements"" to the recipients, who, since they have been told (and certainly WANT to believe) that they are just getting ""what they are due"", don't feel that anyone has any RIGHT to tell them how to spend it.
Indian PF is a social security scheme, and as per the US India DTAA Article 20, is not taxable by the US. The exact text says as under -  This clearly states that any social security benefit paid by any of the two contracting states to a resident of the other contracting state is taxable only in the first mentioned state. In other words, US cannot tax Indian social security benefits (and vice versa). Therefore, you are liable for taxes only in India even though you have to declare to the US that you were given the social security (PF) benefit by India.
Yeah, the federal gas tax has been 18.4 cents per gallon since I think 1920's and states add another 20 to 55 cents per gallon, but it is nowhere near enough to cover costs.  And I grew up in Illinois, nothing has changed much (I don't remember when we didn't have a former governor in jail).
One aspect that may not be obvious - if you contribute to an HSA through payroll deduction, it comes out before the Social Security (6.2%) and Medicare (1.45%) taxes.  Since a payroll contribution reduces your taxes by 7.65%, it's generally the better option.
If you can still work or have income to support yourself, I would wait. contrary to some media reports, Social Security has enough money to cover full benefits for a number of years to come, and there are solutions that don't involve cutting payouts. And as mentioned before it is likely you'll be grandfathered in if there are cuts.
Supposedly people's birth certificates and SSNs are routing numbers and account numbers for federal reserve banks. Apparently this has been a thing since 1933 when Roosevelt did something. Anyway the story goes there is an entity called Strawman and it's a bank account with your name on it and it's been accruing monies since the day you were issued a birth certificate and SSN. Idr much sorry for being vague on the details
It is not wasted: it bought you peace of mind. Perhaps you would have had peace of mind without it, because of the particular industry you are in. But people from any industry can get sick or give birth, and not all industries are as evergreen as people think. A number of my onetime programmer colleagues now drive a truck or run a farm because new programming jobs weren't as easy to get as they once were. Like any insurance, it can't be affordable if it is bought only by those who think they will need it. The premiums you pay, in addition to giving you peace of mind, lower the premiums your neighbours pay. That contributes to social harmony. When your neighbours collect EI while looking for another job, they aren't tempted to turn to crime or legal-but-not-savoury ways to earn money. You probably like that, too. The fact they didn't get to choose whether or not to contribute means that they will be covered even if they aren't prudent and forward-looking people, which again is a benefit for you. And BTW, employers pay $1.40 in premiums for every dollar you pay. And we never collect. It's not for us. But we pay it.
They are entitled to the benefit.  End of story.  I dont know what you do not understand here.  Clearly you don't know a fucking thing anyway so I don't know why I am wasting my time with someone so ignorant as you in the first place.  Fix the military from the inside?    The military gets it's funding from congress smart guy, they teach that in junior high school.  I tell you what, since you obviously cant afford one yourself I'll give you a clue.
So while that 10 or 15% of your check that goes towards UH sucks - remember that if you were in the US you'd be paying 20 to 30% to an outside company for insurance. Plus you'd have to deal with pre-existing conditions and finding doctors in network and jumping all the bullshit hurdles Americans do on a daily basis without any of the convenience of having *one single system* to coordinate those resources. So you're either paying down the government's throat - or your paying twice that down a private company's throat. It sucks either way - but UH mitigates how bad it sucks. And one interesting note - I thought you were full of shit about paying 60% in taxes - but some places actually do charge [that much](http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-with-the-highest-taxes-in-the-world.html). So you could be right. But two interesting correlations about those countries is that they all have UH - and they all dominate the top spots in the UN's [happiest places in the world](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/20/norway-ousts-denmark-as-worlds-happiest-country-un-report). Don't underestimate the stress of living as a regular citizen without the benefit of a strong social safety net.
The article you link scares me; but I still have faith that the FDIC will keep me protected.  Personally, if the FDIC goes broke, there is something more fundamentally wrong with the government as a whole and dollars won't worry me much. There are lots of issues with the FDIC, and I think the answers lie outside of simply printing more money and funding the FDIC further.  There is likely more bad before this storm is over, and I might be ignorant, but I still want to operate normally. My money would stay where it is with things being how I see them in today
It feels a bit like the entire system needs an overhaul, one wonders if a more automated economy and rising presence of AI will enable it or be an ethical barrier. It seems there's poor long-term planning for these sorts of issues where UBI is a last-ditch fix for a system that's no longer working for the working class.
Yeah it just got bumped up to 11.25 and they're going to be increasing it over the next couple of years before capping at 15. Rent is already rising to adjust to this development. Doesn't help that income tax here is insane.
Do you get cash (or a deposit into your bank account) of your PhD stipend and then you immediately send the university a check to pay the tuition fee (which might be more than the cash you get from the University)? Or does the University simply keep the stipend money, transferring it from one pocket to another in essence, and say, OK, you have paid your tuition except for $X that you still owe us? Or does the university grant you a tuition waiver as part of your assistantship and reports this as income on Form 1099-MISC? In all of these cases, the money reported on Form 1099-MISC is not taxable income to you, and it is neither subject to Self-Employment tax (basically, Social Security and Medicare tax -- both the employee's share and the employer's share) nor to (Federal) income tax.
As a CPA I can say, without a doubt, you do not owe any federal income tax. However, assuming all of you income was from your business and therefore subject to self-employment tax and you had no healthcare coverage, you would owe: $2,523 in Self-Employment Tax    645 in Healthcare Penalty $3,168 Total Amount You Should Owe. Assuming you have given us the right numbers, $3,300 sounds too high.
You don't decide what gets to be owed, the government does. In your example, they wouldn't owe 1000, they would determine that they only have enough for 750. So guess what, you're now owed only 750. It's called cutting benefits.
"Jeez - you want me to come over and read the articles to you as well?   &gt;Ghana operates the National Health Insurance Scheme to provide citizens with health insurance. The level of premiums citizens must pay varies according to their level of income. Most medical facilities are run directly by the Ministry of Health or Ghana Health Service.[8]  &gt;Rwanda operates a system of universal health insurance through the Ministry of Health called Mutuelle de Santé (Mutual Health), a system of community-based insurance where people pay premiums based on their income level into local health insurance funds, with the wealthiest paying the highest premiums and required to cover a small percentage of their medical expenses, while those at the lowest income levels are exempt from paying premiums and can still utilize the services of their local health fund. In 2012, this system insured all but 4% of the population.[11]  &gt;Israel has a system of universal healthcare as set out by the 1995 National Health Insurance Law. The state is responsible for providing health services to all residents of the country, who can register with one of the four national health service funds. To be eligible, a citizen must pay a health insurance tax.  Now if you want to be nitpicky about whether income-based taxes levied on an individual for nation-wide healthcare counts as ""requiring a person to purchase insurance"" you can - but I think we both know that level of semantics is reserved for people who've said something stupid and now have to retreat into word games."