|
|
CA Min Wage Increase Signed Into Law
 Bahamut.Milamber
Serveur: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3691
By Bahamut.Milamber 2013-10-02 18:12:07
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »I did read the methodology section on the COLI.org page, however, just like you it's not addressing my point. I understand how it's comparing cost of living differences in urban areas. But it doesn't explain why it's lumping together large metropolitan areas with totally different economies.
You're failing to see my point you can't lump together such large urban areas and expect it to be accurate median across the geography. Los Angeles/long Beach is on par to lumping Dallas-FortWorth/san Antonio or NYC/medium sized city. Why can't you? At first glance, it appears to be a fairly common practice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Core_Based_Statistical_Areas
In fact, the LA Metropolitan area is about half the DFW metropolian area.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_metropolitan_area
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas%E2%80%93Fort_Worth_metroplex
By Zerowone 2013-10-02 18:13:11
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »Long Beach is a city, Los Angeles is a city. Both cities border each other. Both cities are principal cities in the "Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana Metropolitan Area" also known as "Metropolitan Los Angeles" also known as "Southland". Areas include Los Angeles county, Ventura county, Orange county, San Bernadino county, and Riverside.
The combined area covers 33,954 square miles (87,940.456 km2). It is considered 1 metropolitan area.
I lived there for 29yrs. Culver City/Baldwin Hills/Mar Vista/Venice Beach to be exact.
They don't have the same sales tax, they all have different utility companies, and very different assisted living programs(housing/food/healthcare etc).
rarely have separate government offices, shared economy, and their population density and wealth read out as a whole and not as individual cities. But that's not the case here. Los Angeles and Long Beach have their own municipal governments. As does Orange County.
As does Culver City, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills which all have their own police force, city halls and elected officials (*edit: and Mass Transit Systems). There are individual municipalities that are subordinant to the greater Los Angeles municipalty.
Just trying to help clarify the picture.
Serveur: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 5381
By Bahamut.Baconwrap 2013-10-02 18:13:23
I wasn't trying to argue you with, just addressing the point that Long Beach and Los Angeles are considered one metropolitan area. Its even hard to define a median for Los Angeles proper, traveling east to west the fluxation of wealth and poverty is immense and is even off set by deviations in the form Hancock Park, for instance, which is located between "Mid City" and an area called "Korea Town" which borders the outskirts of "Downtown". The outskirts of downtown are not exactly the high income areas. Baldwin Hills for instance is one of the most affluent neighborhoods in the entire country and it shares its borders with "The Jungle" and Inglewood, along with Ladera Heights and Blair Hills. I recommend checking up on those names to get a better idea of what I'm trying to express.
Yeah but what Kara is doing is attempting to use this standardized number that accurately reflects a median across Long Beach-Los Angeles, which is nearly impossible to do.
As you pointed out there's a huge fluctuation of wealth, a good example you pointed out,going from Korea Town to Hancock Park, which it's why it's hard to clearly define a median.
Bahamut.Kara
Serveur: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2013-10-02 18:13:42
I would say look at what the Office of Management and Budget says about the metropolitan area but the website is offline.
Here from wiki
Quote: The metropolitan area is defined by the Office of Management and Budget as the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), consisting of Los Angeles and Orange counties, a metropolitan statistical area used for statistical purposes by the United States Census Bureau and other agencies.[3] Its land area is 4,850 sq. mi (12,562 km²).
VIP
Serveur: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2013-10-02 18:14:59
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »But that's not the case here. Los Angeles and Long Beach have their own municipal governments. As does Orange County.
I won't pretend to know anything about the specifics of L.A., I was just adding to the rationale of the way they grouped it. It's a common practice in these types of social statistics, and probably less useful in some situations than others. But it's the standard for metropolitan areas. So it's not really right to say that it's inaccurate or oversimplified anymore than it is just a universal tool. And universal tools by definition are one size fits MOST.
[+]
Bahamut.Kara
Serveur: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2013-10-02 18:17:15
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »I wasn't trying to argue you with, just addressing the point that Long Beach and Los Angeles are considered one metropolitan area. Its even hard to define a median for Los Angeles proper, traveling east to west the fluxation of wealth and poverty is immense and is even off set by deviations in the form Hancock Park, for instance, which is located between "Mid City" and an area called "Korea Town" which borders the outskirts of "Downtown". The outskirts of downtown are not exactly the high income areas. Baldwin Hills for instance is one of the most affluent neighborhoods in the entire country and it shares its borders with "The Jungle" and Inglewood, along with Ladera Heights and Blair Hills. I recommend checking up on those names to get a better idea of what I'm trying to express.
Yeah but what Kara is doing is attempting to use this standardized number that accurately reflects a median across Long Beach-Los Angeles, which is nearly impossible to do.
As you pointed out there's a huge fluctuation of wealth, a good example you pointed out,going from Korea Town to Hancock Park.
Then you should take this problem up with your local government because that is how the census works.
However, Milamber provided an MIT site which does this differently.
I did say when I posted these links that organizations do it in different ways. But hey, why read what I wrote.
[+]
Serveur: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 5381
By Bahamut.Baconwrap 2013-10-02 18:22:48
Then you should take this problem up with your local government because that is how the census works. How about I do that, and you move over to California and get a better idea how the wealth is actually distributed rather than make claims on how you think it works based on an over-simplified median model?
Bahamut.Milamber
Serveur: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3691
By Bahamut.Milamber 2013-10-02 18:23:29
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »I wasn't trying to argue you with, just addressing the point that Long Beach and Los Angeles are considered one metropolitan area. Its even hard to define a median for Los Angeles proper, traveling east to west the fluxation of wealth and poverty is immense and is even off set by deviations in the form Hancock Park, for instance, which is located between "Mid City" and an area called "Korea Town" which borders the outskirts of "Downtown". The outskirts of downtown are not exactly the high income areas. Baldwin Hills for instance is one of the most affluent neighborhoods in the entire country and it shares its borders with "The Jungle" and Inglewood, along with Ladera Heights and Blair Hills. I recommend checking up on those names to get a better idea of what I'm trying to express.
Yeah but what Kara is doing is attempting to use this standardized number that accurately reflects a median across Long Beach-Los Angeles, which is nearly impossible to do.
As you pointed out there's a huge fluctuation of wealth, a good example you pointed out,going from Korea Town to Hancock Park, which it's why it's hard to clearly define a median.
If I'm going to be given a choice between random dude on the internet saying "No no no, it can't be done!", or different organizations doing statistical analysis and proving methodology as well as results, in order to base my decisions on... random internet dude isn't going to win.
Can you provide a better option for evaluation? Can you show significant statistical deviation between the results from the smaller geographical sample areas and the larger metropolitan area?
[+]
Serveur: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2013-10-02 18:24:17
Pease limitations: They apply to individuals making 250k/yr+ or joint filers at 300k+ on their gross annual income. Which is specifically W2's i.e what an employer pays an employee. However, the rich don't just receive W2's thats the catch in someones half truth. They have capital gains on investments in the form of stocks, bonds, real estate, step ups and charitable deduction percentages.
In the scenario of modern day American capitalism where you are making 250k+/yr and only have W2s, then you're doing something wrong in that you aren't investing your money and ultimately will not be rich. Bolded for evidence that Zero has absolutely no idea what he is talking about.
Italic for evidence that not only does Zero have absolutely no idea what he is talking about, but doesn't understand the meaning of business investments either.
thats weird because you haven't said why....
I doubt you would believe me, but here we go anyway:
1) A step up is a step up in basis, meaning that the basis of an asset went from one amount to a higher amount, and only occurs when an asset is inherited (or in layman's terms, when a person dies, their stuff gets revalued at the time of the person's death if that person had people to give the stuff to, usually children). IRC Section 1014(a).
2) Charity contributions are not forms of income, they are forms of deductions. If you make a charity contribution, you are giving an asset (being cash or other items in value) from yourself to an organization formed under Section 501(c)(3) (that is the only way you can get a deduction on your personal taxes btw). IRC Section 170(b)(1)(A)
3) According to your scenario, the rich can only gain wealth from income outside of wages, because if they are earning income only from wages, they are not rich (your own definition). You are implying that the rich earns their income from only capital sources, or mainly capital sources (qualified dividends, long-term capital gains, Section 1231 gains, Section 1256 Contracts and Straddles, etc). You fail to realize, however, that there are many forms of investments where the income is earned outside of capital gains treatment, such as income earned from interest, income earned from a trade or business, income earned from a partnership, income earned from a special "S" corporation, income earned from rental properties, income earned from royalties, income earned from leases, income earned from retirement, and so on.
If you are only looking at specific people such as Mitt Romney, Warren Buffet, or Bill Gates, then you have failed to grasp the full meaning of being rich, because there are people out there, a majority of people in the upper division of wealth, who has earned their income outside of income treated under capital gains treatment.
So, yes, I do believe you have no clue as to what you are talking about.
Serveur: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2013-10-02 18:25:19
Pease limitations: They apply to individuals making 250k/yr+ or joint filers at 300k+ on their gross annual income. Which is specifically W2's i.e what an employer pays an employee. However, the rich don't just receive W2's thats the catch in someones half truth. They have capital gains on investments in the form of stocks, bonds, real estate, step ups and charitable deduction percentages.
In the scenario of modern day American capitalism where you are making 250k+/yr and only have W2s, then you're doing something wrong in that you aren't investing your money and ultimately will not be rich. Bolded for evidence that Zero has absolutely no idea what he is talking about.
Italic for evidence that not only does Zero have absolutely no idea what he is talking about, but doesn't understand the meaning of business investments either.
Actually, that isn't really how it works. If you, as a "knowledgeable person" in the field, believe that someone is incorrect, it isn't simply enough to say "He's wrong!", except when the topic is fairly well known to the group or easily researched.
If he is incorrect, this gives you an opportunity to both demonstrate your knowledge of a topic by explaining *specifically* why what he stated was wrong, including referencing particular tax codes, formulas, or methodology.
You could argue that he should do the same with his statements, and you would be right. Oh hey, I didn't even read this post before I made the above one.
Well, there ya go.
Serveur: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2013-10-02 18:27:16
Pease limitations: They apply to individuals making 250k/yr+ or joint filers at 300k+ on their gross annual income. Which is specifically W2's i.e what an employer pays an employee. However, the rich don't just receive W2's thats the catch in someones half truth. They have capital gains on investments in the form of stocks, bonds, real estate, step ups and charitable deduction percentages.
In the scenario of modern day American capitalism where you are making 250k+/yr and only have W2s, then you're doing something wrong in that you aren't investing your money and ultimately will not be rich.
Italic for evidence that not only does Zero have absolutely no idea what he is talking about, but doesn't understand the meaning of business investments either.
Here let me do it again but use your tactic: Bolded and Italicized because Kingbody said I have no idea what I am talking about, never corrected me or produced intelligent counterpoints to the contrary of what I said.
/pats Kingnobody on the head for being a silly sap. Hey Kingnobody here's a rhetorical question that disproves your point for you, ya charlatan:
Why do CEO's of major corporations hardly ever report a gross annual income of more than 500k but receive multi million dollar bonuses??????? Where is your source for this accusation?
Because you are assuming said CEO is committing tax fraud, but yet, why hasn't s/he been arrested yet?
Serveur: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 5381
By Bahamut.Baconwrap 2013-10-02 18:27:16
If I'm going to be given a choice between random dude on the internet saying "No no no, it can't be done!", or different organizations doing statistical analysis and proving methodology as well as results, in order to base my decisions on... random internet dude isn't going to win.
Can you provide a better option for evaluation? Can you show significant statistical deviation between the results from the smaller geographical sample areas and the larger metropolitan area?
I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm saying it needs to be done very specifically. And in large cities like Los Angeles, it needs to be done in a much more specific/neighborhood methodology to filter out the discrepancies.
Bahamut.Kara
Serveur: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2013-10-02 18:27:52
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »Then you should take this problem up with your local government because that is how the census works. How about I do that, and you move over to California and get a better idea how the wealth is actually distributed rather than make claims on how you think it works based on an over-simplified median model?
Right, I give up on you.
You are upset how the US census calculates your CA areas and somehow that is my fault.
Serveur: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 5381
By Bahamut.Baconwrap 2013-10-02 18:31:33
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »Then you should take this problem up with your local government because that is how the census works. How about I do that, and you move over to California and get a better idea how the wealth is actually distributed rather than make claims on how you think it works based on an over-simplified median model?
Right, I give up on you.
You are upset how the US census calculates your CA areas and somehow that is my fault.
I'm not upset whatsoever, in fact I think that's why large cities with such complex economies provide social programs at the municipal level. They understand that median values across large/complex economies have many "cracks" for people to fall through, thus they compensate with municipal programs.
VIP
Serveur: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2013-10-02 18:38:43
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »Then you should take this problem up with your local government because that is how the census works. How about I do that, and you move over to California and get a better idea how the wealth is actually distributed rather than make claims on how you think it works based on an over-simplified median model?
Right, I give up on you.
You are upset how the US census calculates your CA areas and somehow that is my fault.
I'm not upset whatsoever, in fact I think that's why large cities with such complex economies provide social programs at the municipal level. They understand that median values across large/complex economies have many "cracks" for people to fall through, thus they compensate with municipal programs.
That by itself is inherently flawed, though. While it may not function as a single municipality in all functions, the individual municipalities are incomplete. In an area like L.A. metro, the wealthy naturally migrate to the hills or nearer the coast. That creates a natural disparity between individual municipalities.
I noticed that effect a lot living in Phoenix. While a lot of the higher income people lived in places like Fountain Hills and Scottsdale, the largest companies were based in areas of Chandler and Phoenix because of their proximity to shipping and other industry. If those cities were separated by a distance and not an intersection, none of them had an independent infrastructure.
There isn't a nice clean way to do the study you want to see without tailoring it in every category and for each metropolitan area.
[+]
Serveur: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 5381
By Bahamut.Baconwrap 2013-10-02 18:43:26
Such data does exist, but probably not the general public. I'm sure the mayoral race had median income down to the block.
By Zerowone 2013-10-02 18:44:28
Pease limitations: They apply to individuals making 250k/yr+ or joint filers at 300k+ on their gross annual income. Which is specifically W2's i.e what an employer pays an employee. However, the rich don't just receive W2's thats the catch in someones half truth. They have capital gains on investments in the form of stocks, bonds, real estate, step ups and charitable deduction percentages.
In the scenario of modern day American capitalism where you are making 250k+/yr and only have W2s, then you're doing something wrong in that you aren't investing your money and ultimately will not be rich. Bolded for evidence that Zero has absolutely no idea what he is talking about.
Italic for evidence that not only does Zero have absolutely no idea what he is talking about, but doesn't understand the meaning of business investments either.
thats weird because you haven't said why....
I doubt you would believe me, but here we go anyway:
1) A step up is a step up in basis, meaning that the basis of an asset went from one amount to a higher amount, and only occurs when an asset is inherited (or in layman's terms, when a person dies, their stuff gets revalued at the time of the person's death if that person had people to give the stuff to, usually children). IRC Section 1014(a).
2) Charity contributions are not forms of income, they are forms of deductions. If you make a charity contribution, you are giving an asset (being cash or other items in value) from yourself to an organization formed under Section 501(c)(3) (that is the only way you can get a deduction on your personal taxes btw). IRC Section 170(b)(1)(A)
3) According to your scenario, the rich can only gain wealth from income outside of wages, because if they are earning income only from wages, they are not rich (your own definition). You are implying that the rich earns their income from only capital sources, or mainly capital sources (qualified dividends, long-term capital gains, Section 1231 gains, Section 1256 Contracts and Straddles, etc). You fail to realize, however, that there are many forms of investments where the income is earned outside of capital gains treatment, such as income earned from interest, income earned from a trade or business, income earned from a partnership, income earned from a special "S" corporation, income earned from rental properties, income earned from royalties, income earned from leases, income earned from retirement, and so on.
If you are only looking at specific people such as Mitt Romney, Warren Buffet, or Bill Gates, then you have failed to grasp the full meaning of being rich, because there are people out there, a majority of people in the upper division of wealth, who has earned their income outside of income treated under capital gains treatment.
So, yes, I do believe you have no clue as to what you are talking about.
Lets start the focus on your flaw in comprehension:
Charitable deductions percentages re read what you quoted me in bold. You will see the word percentages and not just Charitable deductions. I'm going to space it out so there is no confusion:
A).If I fall into the 10% income tax bracket and donate 1000 dollars I see a return of $100 in deductions? Correct. ^_^
B.)If I fall into the 39.5% income tax bracket and donate 1000 dollars I see a return of $395 deductions? Correct. ^_^
C.)To fall in the higher percentaile of taxed income, I have to earn a higher income? Correct. ^_^
( yes those 3 statements are correct and you spinning a half truth, like a good charaltan does)
So therefore if I make a higher taxed income than the average man I see a greater % of return on my charitable donations in the form of deductions.
Step Up basis
You merely defined step up basis and focused on inheriting. Which is popularly known as Estate or Death Tax. Now what you didn't say was that up to $5,250,000 can be given by an individual, before and/or upon their death, without incurring federal gift or estate taxes. Which is what validates my point cause that's quite a bit of untaxed money.
k thnx bai. better luck next time.
By Zerowone 2013-10-02 18:45:39
Pease limitations: They apply to individuals making 250k/yr+ or joint filers at 300k+ on their gross annual income. Which is specifically W2's i.e what an employer pays an employee. However, the rich don't just receive W2's thats the catch in someones half truth. They have capital gains on investments in the form of stocks, bonds, real estate, step ups and charitable deduction percentages.
In the scenario of modern day American capitalism where you are making 250k+/yr and only have W2s, then you're doing something wrong in that you aren't investing your money and ultimately will not be rich.
Italic for evidence that not only does Zero have absolutely no idea what he is talking about, but doesn't understand the meaning of business investments either.
Here let me do it again but use your tactic: Bolded and Italicized because Kingbody said I have no idea what I am talking about, never corrected me or produced intelligent counterpoints to the contrary of what I said.
/pats Kingnobody on the head for being a silly sap. Hey Kingnobody here's a rhetorical question that disproves your point for you, ya charlatan:
Why do CEO's of major corporations hardly ever report a gross annual income of more than 500k but receive multi million dollar bonuses??????? Where is your source for this accusation?
Because you are assuming said CEO is committing tax fraud, but yet, why hasn't s/he been arrested yet?
See Milambers repsonse they're much smarter than you and didn't post conjecture. They also comprehended the difference between a rhetorical question and an accusation. For which CEO did I accuse? What is wrong with you? Seriously... in the words of Wayne Campbell "R U Mental?"
[+]
VIP
Serveur: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2013-10-02 18:52:29
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »Such data does exist, but probably not the general public. I'm sure the mayoral race had median income down to the block.
The data exists, but raw data is useless to most people, so they package it on a common plane so that it can be digested. Statisticians are an analytic lot.
 Lakshmi.Saevel
Serveur: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2228
By Lakshmi.Saevel 2013-10-02 19:05:50
Pease limitations: They apply to individuals making 250k/yr+ or joint filers at 300k+ on their gross annual income. Which is specifically W2's i.e what an employer pays an employee. However, the rich don't just receive W2's thats the catch in someones half truth. They have capital gains on investments in the form of stocks, bonds, real estate, step ups and charitable deduction percentages.
In the scenario of modern day American capitalism where you are making 250k+/yr and only have W2s, then you're doing something wrong in that you aren't investing your money and ultimately will not be rich.
Italic for evidence that not only does Zero have absolutely no idea what he is talking about, but doesn't understand the meaning of business investments either.
Here let me do it again but use your tactic: Bolded and Italicized because Kingbody said I have no idea what I am talking about, never corrected me or produced intelligent counterpoints to the contrary of what I said.
/pats Kingnobody on the head for being a silly sap. Hey Kingnobody here's a rhetorical question that disproves your point for you, ya charlatan:
Why do CEO's of major corporations hardly ever report a gross annual income of more than 500k but receive multi million dollar bonuses??????? I can field that one!
Bonuses of up to $1million USD are taxed at 25%, and 35% on the amount over 1 million:
e.g. for a 3million bonus, the tax amount would be 0.25*1*10^6 + 0.35*2*10^6 = 950k
Compared to treating it as normal income, where that entire amount (500k + 3million) would likely be taxed at 35% or higher.
*Cough* Bush era Tax cuts
Actually it's much more then that. They've been siphoning money out of the economy for decades now and storing it overseas or in various non-taxable forms.
I really wish people would remember that the President is mostly a figurehead when it comes to domestic affairs. Almost all his executive authority is tied up by congressional approval with the exception of military and foreign policy. Case in point is the war on drugs, President set policy that cannabis enforcement would be lowest priority yet many US federal prosecutors disregarded that policy and ramped up prosecution anyway. There is nothing the President can do, can't fire them as that would violate federal hiring law and can't prevent them from prosecuting.
[+]
Serveur: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2013-10-02 19:08:00
Pease limitations: They apply to individuals making 250k/yr+ or joint filers at 300k+ on their gross annual income. Which is specifically W2's i.e what an employer pays an employee. However, the rich don't just receive W2's thats the catch in someones half truth. They have capital gains on investments in the form of stocks, bonds, real estate, step ups and charitable deduction percentages.
In the scenario of modern day American capitalism where you are making 250k+/yr and only have W2s, then you're doing something wrong in that you aren't investing your money and ultimately will not be rich. Bolded for evidence that Zero has absolutely no idea what he is talking about.
Italic for evidence that not only does Zero have absolutely no idea what he is talking about, but doesn't understand the meaning of business investments either.
thats weird because you haven't said why....
I doubt you would believe me, but here we go anyway:
1) A step up is a step up in basis, meaning that the basis of an asset went from one amount to a higher amount, and only occurs when an asset is inherited (or in layman's terms, when a person dies, their stuff gets revalued at the time of the person's death if that person had people to give the stuff to, usually children). IRC Section 1014(a).
2) Charity contributions are not forms of income, they are forms of deductions. If you make a charity contribution, you are giving an asset (being cash or other items in value) from yourself to an organization formed under Section 501(c)(3) (that is the only way you can get a deduction on your personal taxes btw). IRC Section 170(b)(1)(A)
3) According to your scenario, the rich can only gain wealth from income outside of wages, because if they are earning income only from wages, they are not rich (your own definition). You are implying that the rich earns their income from only capital sources, or mainly capital sources (qualified dividends, long-term capital gains, Section 1231 gains, Section 1256 Contracts and Straddles, etc). You fail to realize, however, that there are many forms of investments where the income is earned outside of capital gains treatment, such as income earned from interest, income earned from a trade or business, income earned from a partnership, income earned from a special "S" corporation, income earned from rental properties, income earned from royalties, income earned from leases, income earned from retirement, and so on.
If you are only looking at specific people such as Mitt Romney, Warren Buffet, or Bill Gates, then you have failed to grasp the full meaning of being rich, because there are people out there, a majority of people in the upper division of wealth, who has earned their income outside of income treated under capital gains treatment.
So, yes, I do believe you have no clue as to what you are talking about.
Lets start the focus on your flaw in comprehension: Charitable deductions percentages re read what you quoted me in bold. You will see the word percentages and not just Charitable deductions. I'm going to space it out so there is no confusion:
A).If I fall into the 10% income tax bracket and donate 1000 dollars I see a return of $100 in deductions? Correct. ^_^
B.)If I fall into the 39.5% income tax bracket and donate 1000 dollars I see a return of $395 deductions? Correct. ^_^
C.)To fall in the higher percentaile of taxed income, I have to earn a higher income? Correct? ^_^
( yes those 3 statements are correct and you spinning a half truth, like a good charaltan does)
So therefore if I make a higher taxed income than the average man I see a greater % of return on my charitable donations in the form of deductions.
Step Up basis
You merely defined step up basis and focused on inheriting. Which is popularly known as Estate or Death Tax. Now what you didn't say was that up to $5,250,000 can be given by an individual, before and/or upon their death, without incurring federal gift or estate taxes. Which is what validates my point cause that's quite a bit of untaxed money.
k thnx bai. better luck next time.
Then lets use your examples as why you are wrong.
In order for you to have charity deductions percentage (as you have stated) you have to, you know, actually donate to charity. You cannot, and I repeat, cannot claim a deduction on charity without actually make the charity donation. Otherwise that is fraud (which you also accused your fictitious CEO an above post for committing).
Also, just in case you can't comprehend that, I'll make it very simple for you. If you have 10 apples and you give one of them away, you no longer have the same amount of apples as you did before.
In other words, giving to charity takes away from your total wealth. The government rewards people from giving away their total wealth by allowing them to take a small percentage away from their taxes.
Which leads me to my next point, your examples are also wrong, and here is why:
1) If you are in the 10% tax bracket and you give away $1,000 of your income to charity, you may have a tax deduction of $100. However that requires you to tax income over $11,500 (assuming you are single with no dependents) in order for you to fully realize the $100 of savings on your donation. But are you really, in reality, going to donate nearly 10% of your total income for only a small % of your taxes to be relieved? (Passing on that point though)
2) If you are in the 39.6% tax bracket and you give away $1,000 of your income to charity, you will not receive $395 of tax benefit. You will receive between $316 to $383 tax benefit. The reason is because of the Pease Limitation (otherwise known as IRC Section 68(a)(1), Section 68(a)(2), and Section 68(b)) which limits the total amount of your deduction from 3% of the deduction up to 20% depending on how much you earned. That deduction starts phasing out 300,000 (again, assuming you are single). 39.6% bracket starts at 400,000 (again, assuming you are single). So, you are incorrect, and anyone who would know the tax code (as you are pretending to do so) would know that in a heartbeat.
As for the step-up in basis, you are only half-correct. There is a unified credit for both gifts and estate, and the credit only applies on the tax owed on the gift. But that applies to everyone, not just to the rich.
Are you implying that everyone should pay an estate tax after they die?
Serveur: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2013-10-02 19:14:31
Pease limitations: They apply to individuals making 250k/yr+ or joint filers at 300k+ on their gross annual income. Which is specifically W2's i.e what an employer pays an employee. However, the rich don't just receive W2's thats the catch in someones half truth. They have capital gains on investments in the form of stocks, bonds, real estate, step ups and charitable deduction percentages.
In the scenario of modern day American capitalism where you are making 250k+/yr and only have W2s, then you're doing something wrong in that you aren't investing your money and ultimately will not be rich.
Italic for evidence that not only does Zero have absolutely no idea what he is talking about, but doesn't understand the meaning of business investments either.
Here let me do it again but use your tactic: Bolded and Italicized because Kingbody said I have no idea what I am talking about, never corrected me or produced intelligent counterpoints to the contrary of what I said.
/pats Kingnobody on the head for being a silly sap. Hey Kingnobody here's a rhetorical question that disproves your point for you, ya charlatan:
Why do CEO's of major corporations hardly ever report a gross annual income of more than 500k but receive multi million dollar bonuses??????? Where is your source for this accusation?
Because you are assuming said CEO is committing tax fraud, but yet, why hasn't s/he been arrested yet?
See Milambers repsonse they're much smarter than you and didn't post conjecture. They also comprehended the difference between a rhetorical question and an accusation. For which CEO did I accuse? What is wrong with you? Seriously... in the words of Wayne Campbell "R U Mental?" So, you can't give an answer so you make other ***up?
You said that CEO's of major corps hardly ever report a gross annual income of more than 500k but receive multi-million dollar bonuses. Where is your proof in that?
I can make wild accusations too. I believe you are a basement dweller who (used to) get their government check so you can go down the corner to buy your pot, but you are mad because your government check (for disability of being depressed) hasn't come in the mail yet.
Now, which one of our accusations is true? I don't know you, and I highly doubt you are who I said you are, but I believe that my accusation has a higher probability of being true than your accusation.
By Zerowone 2013-10-02 19:27:40
Pease limitations: They apply to individuals making 250k/yr+ or joint filers at 300k+ on their gross annual income. Which is specifically W2's i.e what an employer pays an employee. However, the rich don't just receive W2's thats the catch in someones half truth. They have capital gains on investments in the form of stocks, bonds, real estate, step ups and charitable deduction percentages.
In the scenario of modern day American capitalism where you are making 250k+/yr and only have W2s, then you're doing something wrong in that you aren't investing your money and ultimately will not be rich.
Italic for evidence that not only does Zero have absolutely no idea what he is talking about, but doesn't understand the meaning of business investments either.
Here let me do it again but use your tactic: Bolded and Italicized because Kingbody said I have no idea what I am talking about, never corrected me or produced intelligent counterpoints to the contrary of what I said.
/pats Kingnobody on the head for being a silly sap. Hey Kingnobody here's a rhetorical question that disproves your point for you, ya charlatan:
Why do CEO's of major corporations hardly ever report a gross annual income of more than 500k but receive multi million dollar bonuses??????? Where is your source for this accusation?
Because you are assuming said CEO is committing tax fraud, but yet, why hasn't s/he been arrested yet?
See Milambers repsonse they're much smarter than you and didn't post conjecture. They also comprehended the difference between a rhetorical question and an accusation. For which CEO did I accuse? What is wrong with you? Seriously... in the words of Wayne Campbell "R U Mental?" So, you can't give an answer so you make other ***up?
You said that CEO's of major corps hardly ever report a gross annual income of more than 500k but receive multi-million dollar bonuses. Where is your proof in that?
I can make wild accusations too. I believe you are a basement dweller who (used to) get their government check so you can go down the corner to buy your pot, but you are mad because your government check (for disability of being depressed) hasn't come in the mail yet.
Now, which one of our accusations is true? I don't know you, and I highly doubt you are who I said you are, but I believe that my accusation has a higher probability of being true than your accusation.
If that were true how can I afford the Internet? Or have purchased a house in the last 3 months.
But here it's all explained in the types of compensations portion: Executive Compensations
Now about that last post you did see below....
By Zerowone 2013-10-02 19:58:16
Pease limitations: They apply to individuals making 250k/yr+ or joint filers at 300k+ on their gross annual income. Which is specifically W2's i.e what an employer pays an employee. However, the rich don't just receive W2's thats the catch in someones half truth. They have capital gains on investments in the form of stocks, bonds, real estate, step ups and charitable deduction percentages.
In the scenario of modern day American capitalism where you are making 250k+/yr and only have W2s, then you're doing something wrong in that you aren't investing your money and ultimately will not be rich. Bolded for evidence that Zero has absolutely no idea what he is talking about.
Italic for evidence that not only does Zero have absolutely no idea what he is talking about, but doesn't understand the meaning of business investments either.
thats weird because you haven't said why....
I doubt you would believe me, but here we go anyway:
1) A step up is a step up in basis, meaning that the basis of an asset went from one amount to a higher amount, and only occurs when an asset is inherited (or in layman's terms, when a person dies, their stuff gets revalued at the time of the person's death if that person had people to give the stuff to, usually children). IRC Section 1014(a).
2) Charity contributions are not forms of income, they are forms of deductions. If you make a charity contribution, you are giving an asset (being cash or other items in value) from yourself to an organization formed under Section 501(c)(3) (that is the only way you can get a deduction on your personal taxes btw). IRC Section 170(b)(1)(A)
3) According to your scenario, the rich can only gain wealth from income outside of wages, because if they are earning income only from wages, they are not rich (your own definition). You are implying that the rich earns their income from only capital sources, or mainly capital sources (qualified dividends, long-term capital gains, Section 1231 gains, Section 1256 Contracts and Straddles, etc). You fail to realize, however, that there are many forms of investments where the income is earned outside of capital gains treatment, such as income earned from interest, income earned from a trade or business, income earned from a partnership, income earned from a special "S" corporation, income earned from rental properties, income earned from royalties, income earned from leases, income earned from retirement, and so on.
If you are only looking at specific people such as Mitt Romney, Warren Buffet, or Bill Gates, then you have failed to grasp the full meaning of being rich, because there are people out there, a majority of people in the upper division of wealth, who has earned their income outside of income treated under capital gains treatment.
So, yes, I do believe you have no clue as to what you are talking about.
Lets start the focus on your flaw in comprehension: Charitable deductions percentages re read what you quoted me in bold. You will see the word percentages and not just Charitable deductions. I'm going to space it out so there is no confusion:
A).If I fall into the 10% income tax bracket and donate 1000 dollars I see a return of $100 in deductions? Correct. ^_^
B.)If I fall into the 39.5% income tax bracket and donate 1000 dollars I see a return of $395 deductions? Correct. ^_^
C.)To fall in the higher percentaile of taxed income, I have to earn a higher income? Correct? ^_^
( yes those 3 statements are correct and you spinning a half truth, like a good charaltan does)
So therefore if I make a higher taxed income than the average man I see a greater % of return on my charitable donations in the form of deductions.
Step Up basis
You merely defined step up basis and focused on inheriting. Which is popularly known as Estate or Death Tax. Now what you didn't say was that up to $5,250,000 can be given by an individual, before and/or upon their death, without incurring federal gift or estate taxes. Which is what validates my point cause that's quite a bit of untaxed money.
k thnx bai. better luck next time.
Then lets use your examples as why you are wrong.
In order for you to have charity deductions percentage (as you have stated) you have to, you know, actually donate to charity. You cannot, and I repeat, cannot claim a deduction on charity without actually make the charity donation. Otherwise that is fraud (which you also accused your fictitious CEO an above post for committing).
Also, just in case you can't comprehend that, I'll make it very simple for you. If you have 10 apples and you give one of them away, you no longer have the same amount of apples as you did before.
In other words, giving to charity takes away from your total wealth. The government rewards people from giving away their total wealth by allowing them to take a small percentage away from their taxes.
Which leads me to my next point, your examples are also wrong, and here is why:
1) If you are in the 10% tax bracket and you give away $1,000 of your income to charity, you may have a tax deduction of $100. However that requires you to tax income over $11,500 (assuming you are single with no dependents) in order for you to fully realize the $100 of savings on your donation. But are you really, in reality, going to donate nearly 10% of your total income for only a small % of your taxes to be relieved? (Passing on that point though)
2) If you are in the 39.6% tax bracket and you give away $1,000 of your income to charity, you will not receive $395 of tax benefit. You will receive between $316 to $383 tax benefit. The reason is because of the Pease Limitation (otherwise known as IRC Section 68(a)(1), Section 68(a)(2), and Section 68(b)) which limits the total amount of your deduction from 3% of the deduction up to 20% depending on how much you earned. That deduction starts phasing out 300,000 (again, assuming you are single). 39.6% bracket starts at 400,000 (again, assuming you are single). So, you are incorrect, and anyone who would know the tax code (as you are pretending to do so) would know that in a heartbeat.
As for the step-up in basis, you are only half-correct. There is a unified credit for both gifts and estate, and the credit only applies on the tax owed on the gift. But that applies to everyone, not just to the rich.
Are you implying that everyone should pay an estate tax after they die?
In order for you to have charity deductions percentage (as you have stated) you have to, you know, actually donate to charity. You cannot, and I repeat, cannot claim a deduction on charity without actually make the charity donation. Otherwise that is fraud (which you also accused your fictitious CEO an above post for committing).
Oh.. You don't *** say? Who would of thought otherwise?
Nobody accussed a ficticious CEO of defrauding through charity. The rhetorical question was why do CEO's only get paid like 500k (1M is the deductible cap for the corporation) but receive multi million bonuses via stock options and other means.
In other words, giving to charity takes away from your total wealth. The government rewards people from giving away their total wealth by allowing them to take a small percentage away from their taxes.
Which leads me to my next point, your examples are also wrong, and here is why:
1) If you are in the 10% tax bracket and you give away $1,000 of your income to charity, you may have a tax deduction of $100. However that requires you to tax income over $11,500 (assuming you are single with no dependents) in order for you to fully realize the $100 of savings on your donation. But are you really, in reality, going to donate nearly 10% of your total income for only a small % of your taxes to be relieved? (Passing on that point though)
You are literally nitpicking semantics and validating the point you are trying to defeat at the same time 2) If you are in the 39.6% tax bracket and you give away $1,000 of your income to charity, you will not receive $395 of tax benefit. You will receive between $316 to $383 tax benefit. The reason is because of the Pease Limitation (otherwise known as IRC Section 68(a)(1), Section 68(a)(2), and Section 68(b)) which limits the total amount of your deduction from 3% of the deduction up to 20% depending on how much you earned. That deduction starts phasing out 300,000 (again, assuming you are single). 39.6% bracket starts at 400,000 (again, assuming you are single). So, you are incorrect, and anyone who would know the tax code (as you are pretending to do so) would know that in a heartbeat. Again you are nitpicking value of return based on a hypothetical value used, instead of focusing on the argument presented. You literally wasted your time to indicate that it was a $316 to $383 tax benefit return on $1000 donation for a person making more than $400k, instead of $395 in return.
Did you know you just proved my point that you getter a higher deductible on that said 1000 donation than the person making 11,000? As for the step-up in basis, you are only half-correct. There is a unified credit for both gifts and estate, and the credit only applies on the tax owed on the gift. But that applies to everyone, not just to the rich. So you're saying anything up to 5.25M is not a lot of money? I know 20 dollars isn't a lot of money but a million maybe 2, 3 , 4 million before incurring a gift or estate tax. That seems like a lot of money. Especially if you are breaking up 20-30million 6 ways. Are you implying that everyone should pay an estate tax after they die? How does one pay a tax after they die? I don't think it's possible. But for some reason there is this thing called "Probate", and probate lawyers believe that if you die without leaving a will or trust the state gets first dibs on the estate. If you think about trying get into a semantics debate about probate. I lost three quarters of a million dollars to the state of CA because my father died without a will. So don't even try it. My hatred of that system and knowledge thereof is immense.
/thread.
Serveur: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2013-10-02 21:24:08
Another point I forgot to mention was that, for your 10% tax bracket example, you would also have to itemize. Which means you need to have itemized deductions allowed to be over $5,950.
Anywho...
Oh.. You don't *** say? Who would of thought otherwise?
Nobody accussed a ficticious CEO of defrauding through charity. The rhetorical question was why do CEO's only get paid like 500k (1M is the deductible cap for the corporation) but receive multi million bonuses via stock options and other means.
Which is fraud. You also failed to mention any CEOs who are doing this, since you have the inside scoop of every CEO tax returns.
But you are correct, nobody accused a fictitious CEO of defrauding through charity. Not even me. So I don't know where you got that from...
You are literally nitpicking semantics and validating the point you are trying to defeat at the same time
The point that, the higher the tax bracket, the better the deduction would be against their taxes?
So what? You also forget that the higher the tax bracket, the more income is subject to taxes. Would you rather receive a 10% deduction on your taxes and pay $900 or a 39.6% deduction on your taxes and pay $90,000?
Again you are nitpicking value of return based on a hypothetical value used, instead of focusing on the argument presented. You literally wasted your time to indicate that it was a $316 to $383 tax benefit return on $1000 donation for a person making more than $400k, instead of $395 in return.
Did you know you just proved my point that you getter a higher deductible on that said 1000 donation than the person making 11,000?
Your argument is flawed because you assume a 1:1 ratio between the two, where in reality it isn't so, thanks to our tax code.
Yes, a person in a higher tax bracket will get a better tax deduction on charity, and practically every single itemized deduction (up to a point) but you also forget two items: The Pease limitation (which is my point) and Alternative Minimum Tax.
AMT limits all deductions that would make the total tax due for a specific income level to be below 28%. It is a very complex calculation, so I highly doubt you would understand it even if I tried to explain it to you. If you would like, go look at Federal Form 6251.
Quote: So you're saying anything up to 5.25M is not a lot of money? I know 20 dollars isn't a lot of money but a million maybe 2, 3 , 4 million before incurring a gift or estate tax. That seems like a lot of money. Especially if you are breaking up 20-30million 6 ways.
No, it is not a lot of money. A person in their lifetime can easily make that amount. All it takes is dedication and willpower. If you think it is a lot of money, then you are limited by your own perseverance and will never be a success.
Quote: How does one pay a tax after they die? I don't think it's possible. But for some reason there is this thing called "Probate", and probate lawyers believe that if you die without leaving a will or trust the state gets first dibs on the estate. If you think about trying get into a semantics debate about probate. I lost three quarters of a million dollars to the state of CA because my father died without a will. So don't even try it. My hatred of that system and knowledge thereof is immense.
Your lawyers didn't try hard enough, or you were not smart enough to understand that, as the direct descendant of that fortune, you are entitled to be the executor of the estate under your father's name if one is not named formally by will. The state should not have touched that money unless there was nobody to claim it, and even then, they are required to wait a 30 day period before they are to touch that money.
Now, if California taxed it, that is a different story. Are you sure that they didn't throw a death tax on that money, because CA is the worst state to die in if you are leaving anything to your children.
But I highly doubt we are getting the whole story, are we?
By Zerowone 2013-10-02 21:24:50
You don't know when to shut up. Your level of speculation is absurdly high. You lost you grasp at straws and think nobody can tell. I honestly pity you.
Serveur: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2013-10-02 21:36:10
If that were true how can I afford the Internet? Or have purchased a house in the last 3 months.
But here it's all explained in the types of compensations portion: Executive Compensations
Now about that last post you did see below.... A) Anyone can say anything on the internet, it doesn't mean that it is true. I'm really Bill Gates and I'm about to buy this website to turn it into another Microsoft subsidiary so I can completely own the internet!
B) What is your point? You are accusing CEOs of committing tax fraud and yet, your proof is a wikipedia link showing the compensation structures of CEOs?
News flash: You still don't know what CEOs are reporting on their tax return! How can you accuse them of fraud if you don't know what they are reporting on their tax return??
Oh, and before you say that they don't receive a W-2 from receiving stock options, restricted stock, or any other non-monetary forms of compensation, you better understand that they are required to report such transactions on W-2, in box 12, as code V. Which means that that compensation is subject to both social security and Medicare taxes. Which they would have to report on line 60 as "other taxes" and pay them then (which, if not calculated correctly on or before April 15th, and paid on that same day, those taxes are subject to interest and penalties....GASP!).
So, try again? I know you are trying your best to troll me, but unfortunately it is not working.
Serveur: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2013-10-02 21:38:07
You don't know when to shut up. Your level of speculation is absurdly high. You lost you grasp at straws and think nobody can tell. I honestly pity you. You think that popularity polls and structures of pay are good enough to prove your point in your defense of flawed reasoning.
And I do know that everyone can tell that.
Plus, I know that everyone can see that you are trying your best to troll us all.
I give you 2 stars for the attempt.
By Zerowone 2013-10-02 21:39:04
by the rate of your postings and nitpicking subject matter and factual inaccurate retorts its worked.
Oh, and before you say that they don't receive a W-2 from receiving stock options, restricted stock, or any other non-monetary forms of compensation, you better understand that they are required to report such transactions on W-2, in box 12, as code V. Which means that that compensation is subject to both social security and Medicare taxes. Which they would have to report on line 60 as "other taxes" and pay them then (which, if not calculated correctly on or before April 15th, and paid on that same day, those taxes are subject to interest and penalties....GASP!).
you can't win this.. ever. I'm surpised whoever pays you to do their taxes hasn't beaten you with a switch yet.
Still batting 1000 son.
By Zerowone 2013-10-02 22:03:28
If that were true how can I afford the Internet? Or have purchased a house in the last 3 months.
But here it's all explained in the types of compensations portion: Executive Compensations
Now about that last post you did see below.... A) Anyone can say anything on the internet, it doesn't mean that it is true. I'm really Bill Gates and I'm about to buy this website to turn it into another Microsoft subsidiary so I can completely own the internet!
You mean like pretending to be a tax wiz on a video game forum? When really you're just a sad condescending douche that wants people to like him.
couldn't resist. I suppose the only reason the mods haven't locked this thread is because the entertainment level is 11 like my trolling.
Quote: California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) on Wednesday signed a bill approving a $2 minimum wage increase to be rolled out over the next three years. Unless another state passes a larger increase, the bump will make California's minimum wage the highest in the country.
The governor joined legislators, business owners and workers at a signing ceremony in Los Angeles on Wednesday morning, with plans to fly to another ceremony in Oakland that afternoon.
“For millions of California’s hardworking minimum wage employees, a few extra dollars a week can make a huge difference to help them provide for their families,” said state Senate President pro tem Darrell Steinberg in a release. "They deserve a modest boost and after six years, an increase in California’s minimum wage is the right thing to do.”
The minimum wage will go up in two separate $1 increments. The first will bump the rate from $8 to $9 in July 2014, and the second increase, to $10, will come in January 2016. According to the Economic Policy Institute, about 3 million Californians are currently working for minimum wage.
Many low-wage workers across the state hailed the news.
Anthony Goytia, who works the overnight shift at a Walmart store in Duarte, currently lives in a garage with his wife and two children, while a third is on the way.
“If I had a higher wage, we would be able to rent an apartment,” he told The Huffington Post. “[Right now] we’re living in poverty. I have to live check to check.”
He detailed the struggles of living off a low wage, especially with a family. “I want to be able to buy my kids shoes if they need them and not wait for our income tax [return] to do it,” he said. “I want to give my wife money for maternity pants and underwear. She needs bras. It’s just ridiculous.”
Goytia said his family cannot afford Walmart’s health insurance plan and must depend on Medi-Cal, the state's Medicare program, instead. They also frequently receive food stamps.
“I really don’t want to depend on food stamps,” he told HuffPost. “I’m a hardworking person; I want to be a proud, working American that’s not on public assistance."
Maria Cristobal works seasonally in a packinghouse or in the lettuce and chile fields near where she lives with her two children in Fresno.
“Two more dollars would impact me a lot,” she told HuffPost. “I would definitely like to have more money for the house, for food, for rent, utilities.”
But she worries that a minimum wage hike might equal a price hike as well.
“When they raise wages, they raise prices of things," she said. "I think companies will cut back on hiring people, and it’s hard to find work sometimes.”
Brown, however, argued the reverse, saying wages in California have stagnated while consumer prices have continued to rise.
“The minimum wage has not kept pace with rising costs,” the governor said in a release. “This legislation is overdue and will help families that are struggling in this harsh economy.”
But by the time the $10 minimum takes effect, it will probably still be outpaced by inflation. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, $10 per hour in 2016 is equivalent to roughly $9.36 in today's dollars.
Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez (D-Los Angeles) also disputed the idea that the minimum wage increase would put a drag on the economy.
“A $10 hour minimum wage boosts earnings by $4,000 a year and will put $2.6 billion dollars back into the hands of workers,” he said. “This is money that will be spent at grocery stores, on school supplies and invested in education, and that ultimately strengthens the recovery and ensures California’s job market continues growing faster than the rest of the nation.”
I know many democrats will disagree with me, but this is supporting "unskilled labor" at best. I understand the concept of helping bring a large chunk of working-class Americans out of the poverty bracket but this doesn't really remedy the problem. It's just a temporary fix for a particular demographic, that ultimately will have severe ramifications on the state economy.
The democrats in CA might have civil rights down, but their views on how to fix the economy is bullsh#t. Earlier this year they decided to invest more money into CA prisons rather than K-12 education...
|
|
