9-9-9
- Thread starter chaosclarity
- Start date
So how exactly would this proposed change in taxation fix the structural deficit issues?
so the next year, I had a fantastic 1st quarter, the kind you only dream about, so i remembered how it went last year and figured why pay quarterly estimates when I'll probably lose most of it the rest of the year anyway. The second quarter was not as good but still way above average. I figured, why give it to the IRS when I will probably need it to dig myself out of the next drawdown. And sure as shit, the 3rd quarter was a loser. not big, not net for the year, but a loser. So still no estimated taxes. Then I don't know what happened. December was incredible, no matter what I did I couldn't lose. Man, come Jan 15 I owed a shitload of taxes and I'd already spent it. (had a wife and kids back then) One side of the family was Christian and the other side Jewish and my kids celebrated both Hannuka and Christmas.)
I have confidence in the American people that when it comes time to vote they will look at all the options and ask themselves if they are better off today then they were 4 years ago. If they are better off, then their choice will be obvious. However, if they are not better off then they will have another choice.
You can opine on message boards like this all weekend long as you have been doing this weekend (when you really should be continuing the job search), however, it will fool no one when the time comes to vote.
You can opine on message boards like this all weekend long as you have been doing this weekend (when you really should be continuing the job search), however, it will fool no one when the time comes to vote.
plan is horrible plus worst thing which makes anyone puke is 9 % tax on trading...
Anything on trading either capital or dividend should be taxed over 30 to 40 %.. speculators and greedy BS can ruin entire countries...
once you cap greedy Wall street there wont be any other bubble for atleast 20 yrs...
Anything on trading either capital or dividend should be taxed over 30 to 40 %.. speculators and greedy BS can ruin entire countries...
once you cap greedy Wall street there wont be any other bubble for atleast 20 yrs...
Total sales taxes on a transaction would be 15-18% everywhere. 7-9% of that would be the state sales tax which is already in place. The "9-9-9" plan is only about FEDERAL income tax.
Some countries have zero capital gains tax. They haven't "ruined entire countries", have the?
You're talking crazy, here...
Singapore is commonly labeled as the land of opportunity and number on in terms of freedom. The US should study that model and emulate it. No one in Singapore pays over 20% in taxes.
chaosclarity
Remember:
How many are really informed beyond their biases?
The people protesting through the country also vote.
Many indoctrinated college grads also will vote and remember their knowledgeable professors.
Who will not be influenced by their government assistance?
How about all the dropouts?
How will those bottom of the economic chain vote?
How many will vote against their own self interest?
PROBABLY AS MANY % WISE AS THOSE IN WASHINGTON D.C. PUT COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY !
Remember:
How many are really informed beyond their biases?
The people protesting through the country also vote.
Many indoctrinated college grads also will vote and remember their knowledgeable professors.
Who will not be influenced by their government assistance?
How about all the dropouts?
How will those bottom of the economic chain vote?
How many will vote against their own self interest?
PROBABLY AS MANY % WISE AS THOSE IN WASHINGTON D.C. PUT COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY !
Taxes?
Title 26 tax code. Law frequently goes to the definitions:
TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 79 > § 7701
(c) Includes and including
The terms âincludesâ and âincludingâ when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.
Why is that defined as a legal term?
Why is the definition full of double negatives?
When you read the sentence it might sound like "includes" means "expansive", however remove the double negatives and you'll see that "includes" means "inclusive".
Also see the legal definitions for "employee", "employer", and "trade or business".
Title 26 tax code. Law frequently goes to the definitions:
TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 79 > § 7701
(c) Includes and including
The terms âincludesâ and âincludingâ when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.
Why is that defined as a legal term?
Why is the definition full of double negatives?
When you read the sentence it might sound like "includes" means "expansive", however remove the double negatives and you'll see that "includes" means "inclusive".
Also see the legal definitions for "employee", "employer", and "trade or business".