Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Yes, but... shouldn't there be an emergency measure (break only in event of fire) that allows the Revenue to be a nice, patient bear just hanging around until you do do your little, tax-evading buy-back? Then allow it to pounce?
But, only in the advent when suspected tax-evasion becomes actualised?
edited 29th Jan '13 12:50:09 PM by Euodiachloris
![]()
The people in question are not typically hurting for cash to pay their taxes. And the effect is to deliberately disincentivize this type of trading, anyway.
Tax avoiding buyback.
And again, the net income the person realizes isn't different, it's just taxed differently. If you can reduce your income in one year when you're in the 39% pecentile and then the next year you're only in the 35% percentile, then you're better off, but all of that income was still taxed.
Deliberately disincentivize which type of trading? Where you sell at a loss and buy back at a lower price? Sure, you claim the deduction then, but when and if you do sell at the higher price you pay tax on the full realized gains back from when you bought it.
If you buy stock at $50 a share, but it goes down to $40 a share, you sell and rebuy, claiming a $10 loss. But then if it goes up to $60 a share and you sell, you pay tax on $20 rather than $10, right?
And then we get into short-term vs. long-term capital gains, and blah blah blah.
Also, moving up and down the tax brackets doesn't work the way Tomu appears to think. If you move up, you pay the lower rate on the income below the break, and only pay the higher rate on the income that put you in the higher bracket.
edited 29th Jan '13 12:57:08 PM by Lawyerdude
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.If there is a buy-back agreement that talks about merchandice/assets being sold in one year just to be bought back in the next (or transactions that behave as such), companies are required to figure their taxes as if they owned everything the whole time. The only difference is the money that actually changed hands.
Yu hav nat sein bod speeling unntil know. (cacke four undersandig tis)the cake is a lie!Obamacare requires employers (who have at least X employees) to cover full-time workers. Employers immediately reacted by cutting employees and/or cutting hours across the board to dodge having to cover anyone.
It is kind of a "what the hell did you expect" moment, but not one that could really have been avoided.
I'd be willing to just say any employer over the employee limit would just have to cover everyone regardless of full/part time. People who actively seek out part-time jobs do so because of time constraints that keep them from full employment; working part-time, even with health coverage, is still almost always a financial loss.
edited 29th Jan '13 2:07:25 PM by Pykrete
![]()
I would love to see Mc Donalds try to figure out how to do that. Off-shore call centre video phones that barely work?
edited 29th Jan '13 2:07:26 PM by Zendervai
The part-time exemption is a huge loophole that really needs to be closed somehow. As it is, studies seem to indicate that employers who provide coverage see a net gain, but I haven't studied that information very closely.
Frankly, the hours cutting seems to be related more to the liberal-conservative leanings of the business owner than to their profit/loss.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Senator Graham (R-SC): Either Panetta testifies on Libya or I put hold on Hagel nomination
Senator Cruz (R-TX) to Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel: Keep your 'anti-gun crusade' out of Texas
Mayor Michael Bloomberg: Joe Biden has ‘set of balls’
San Francisco nudity ban upheld in federal court
edited 29th Jan '13 4:12:36 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016So we're supposed to use emergency funds for regular maintainence that our taxes are supposed to be paying for? What kind of financial sense does that fucking make? That emergency money is supposed to be there for things like fighting goddamn wildfires you apparently forgot we're lately prone to having.
Fuckass.
Ray LaHood to step down as Secretary of Transportation
WE LOST ANOTHER ONE!
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) declines to endorse Feinstein's assault-weapons legislation

The problem in taxing unrealized gains is that it runs against the principle of "wherewithal to pay". That is, you should only be taxed on income if the income comes with the ability to pay tax on it. Or in other words, you should only be taxed once you have the cash in hand.
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.