TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The General US Politics Thread

Go To

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

Lawyerdude Citizen from my secret moon base Since: Jan, 2001
Citizen
#48426: Jan 29th 2013 at 12:46:16 PM

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.
Euodiachloris Since: Oct, 2010
#48427: Jan 29th 2013 at 12:49:38 PM

[up]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

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#48428: Jan 29th 2013 at 12:51:56 PM

[up][up] 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.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#48429: Jan 29th 2013 at 12:51:59 PM

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.

Euodiachloris Since: Oct, 2010
#48430: Jan 29th 2013 at 12:53:18 PM

[up]Avoidance is evasion with a lawyer and accountant as backup. tongue

Lawyerdude Citizen from my secret moon base Since: Jan, 2001
Citizen
#48431: Jan 29th 2013 at 12:55:00 PM

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.
Belian In honor of my 50lb pup from 42 Since: Jan, 2001
In honor of my 50lb pup
#48432: Jan 29th 2013 at 12:58:15 PM

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!
Pykrete NOT THE BEES from Viridian Forest Since: Sep, 2009
NOT THE BEES
#48433: Jan 29th 2013 at 1:42:58 PM

Some girl in my facebook feed is complaining that Obamacare cost her mother and sister eight hours of work so now they only work 30 a week. Does anyone know how this is possible?

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.

TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#48434: Jan 29th 2013 at 1:45:49 PM

There needs to be a provision that if you rely a certain amount on part time employment, you have to cover part-timers too.

Pykrete NOT THE BEES from Viridian Forest Since: Sep, 2009
NOT THE BEES
#48435: Jan 29th 2013 at 1:46:38 PM

Yeah that would be a good solution. They'll still game the system as much as they're given leverage to, but it at least wouldn't be quite as bad.

Well, unless they just decide to outsource everything.

edited 29th Jan '13 1:47:55 PM by Pykrete

TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#48436: Jan 29th 2013 at 1:49:55 PM

A lot of jobs can't be effectively off-shored.

Pykrete NOT THE BEES from Viridian Forest Since: Sep, 2009
NOT THE BEES
#48437: Jan 29th 2013 at 2:06:48 PM

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

Zendervai Since: Oct, 2009
#48438: Jan 29th 2013 at 2:06:59 PM

[up][up]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

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#48439: Jan 29th 2013 at 2:08:26 PM

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!"
Zendervai Since: Oct, 2009
#48440: Jan 29th 2013 at 2:13:21 PM

You know, if you're less worried about having to cover medical, wouldn't that mean you'd have less employees overall? That would be less awkwardly timed shifts to have to figure out.

Lawyerdude Citizen from my secret moon base Since: Jan, 2001
Citizen
#48441: Jan 29th 2013 at 2:23:06 PM

Or if an employer was required to pay for health insurance to cover all employees, regardless of whether they're full time or part time, then there's an incentive to have all employees be full time.

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.
DrunkGirlfriend from Castle Geekhaven Since: Jan, 2011
#48442: Jan 29th 2013 at 2:39:42 PM

[up] If I remember correctly, the ACA originally had it so that all employees had to be offered health benefits, but that got changed in the course of Congress.

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#48444: Jan 29th 2013 at 4:15:44 PM

Scalia's a supreme jackass *

. "Oh, the majority didn't rule the same way I did, they must have NO JUDICIAL INTEGRITY! WAAAAAAH"

edited 29th Jan '13 4:21:03 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

Lawyerdude Citizen from my secret moon base Since: Jan, 2001
Citizen
#48445: Jan 29th 2013 at 4:16:41 PM

The definition of an activist judge is a judge who makes a ruling you disagree with.

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.
AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#48446: Jan 29th 2013 at 4:45:41 PM

So 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.

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#48447: Jan 29th 2013 at 4:55:17 PM

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 2016
Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#48448: Jan 29th 2013 at 4:56:10 PM

Is the ship sinking or something? Why is everyone retiring?

AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#48449: Jan 29th 2013 at 5:01:19 PM

It was a tough four years, they're probably all tired. They also seem to be old, so that may be a factor.

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#48450: Jan 29th 2013 at 5:48:44 PM

Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) declines to endorse Feinstein's assault-weapons legislation

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016

Total posts: 417,856
Top