Printable View
With all due respect beehaus, I beg to differ. I pay a team of CPA's to know the difference and they tell me I'm paying actually MORE than 20%. I understand that maybe your L.T. Cap Gains is taxed at 15%...in fact, a lot of folks are even taxed at 0%, but because I had the unmitigated gall to work my a$$ off and earn a decent buck, my L.T. Cap Gains Rate in my brokerage portfolio is 20%....actually, thanks to Obama Care, it's now 23.8%. In a nutshell, here's how it works: Individuals in the 10% and 15% federal income tax brackets can pay 0% on some or all of their LT Gains. Individuals in the 25% federal income tax bracket or higher pay 15% LTG. However, if your taxable income is above $406,750 for singles or $457,600 for married filing jointly (that's me), you are paying 20%...Plus the 3.8% Obama Care kicker. Finally if, like me, you have real estate investments you can actually be taxed at 25% on L.T. Gains plus the 3.8% ObamaCare kicker for a nice little 28.5% L.T. Gains poke in the a$$ by Uncle Sam.Quote:
Originally Posted by beehaus
And Beehaus, you can play with the numbers and play with semantics all you want, but in my book if you are taxed when you earn money and then taxed again when you spend that very same money, that's "double taxation" by definition.
I do agree with your assessment of the special interests never letting a flat tax happen. Too many people (my CPA's included) make a lot of money clarifying and calculating tax code because it's a huge convoluted clusterflock. But that's congress for you...
My wife suggested a while back that any bill that goes before congress should be limited to 1 page double spaced. That way no one would be able to slip in pork barrel stuff and it would have to be clear and concise. If it's more complicated than one page double spaced, then get out another piece of paper and create another bill for the portion that deals with that complication. Smart woman. That's why I married her. Well that....and a few other reasons too :smilewinkgrin:
Your spider shots have reminded me that I have a 105mm, f/1.8 prime lens I've never used. I think I will give it a try soon to discover some of those Macro shot opportunities. Thanks for the nudge.Quote:
Originally Posted by midas360
Good luck :scared: with Weeden Denco. He couldn't cut it here in Cleve. who has been desperate for anyone that resembles a quarterback. Big arm but didn't seem to have the head for the job. At least he has a better team around him.Quote:
Originally Posted by denco1
Thanks for working hard and congrats on having the "problem" of paying more taxes. You do realize you are in the top 1% of earners. That is awesome.Quote:
Originally Posted by user34615145
My point was that you are not paying twice on your income, just on your cap gains. Be happy that your LT capital gains are less than your progressive rate or you would be paying 39.5% or more.
I'll stay out of the politics. We all get 1 vote.
I hope SIRI puts me in the top 1% next year when it hits 6.00! :cool:
I think you both are correct but talking about different things. It's actually a very good topic of discussion. I was in a position for many years of collecting all my "income" via long term capital gains and qualified dividends paying 0% tax rate. It was a great experience for me and my family too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by beehaus
Thanks for mentioning your lens. I am going to look it up. I like the zoom lens but it looks funny when I am backing trying to get a close up shot. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by siriusly_invested
well they have cassel now too....lets not over look that. If weeden can't cut it....they know they have an experienced guy to take over. Think is was back in 2008 when TB12 went down 1st game of the season, Cassel came in and went 10 and 5 for us. Dallas aint out of this thing yet...not by a long shot.Quote:
Originally Posted by SN38
Yep beehaus. I've seen those stats. Top 1% means nothing to me except that I guess it makes me sad to know that so many of the rest of the 99% could do so much better. It's hard work but, frankly if I can do it, pretty much anyone can. I'm certainly not any smarter than the vast majority of those 99% and I certainly wasn't given any special advantage. I'm a college educated man, but I put myself through school and it took 8 years of night's and weekends to get that first 4 year degree. Mostly that degree taught me that you don't need a degree.Quote:
Originally Posted by beehaus
I work hard, I try to work smart and I value my family above everything. It pisses me off to have to take my hard earned money - money I earned working and spending time away from my family, so that others, who have access to the same resources I have, are given that money with no expectation that they try to improve themselves or their lot in life to the point where they no longer require assistance. Like I said in previous posts, I have no problem providing a safety net. I believe we have a social and moral obligation to do so, but I think we also have a social and moral obligation to hold folks accountable and expect more effort on the part of those folks to improve their circumstances and that's where we fall short. It's not about throwing money at the situation, it's about people, and values and a "social contract" where society expects people to do their part to help themselves instead of counting on the government (taxes) for every little thing. Taxing the "rich" to perpetuate the vicious cycle of gov't assistance from one generation to the next is not the answer. That's the "problem" I have. S'all I'm sayin'
Finally...the "one vote" thing is an issue too. Someone with 4x the tax rate, after adjustments, than someone else, should have 4x the voice (vote) on how it's allocated (spent). Think about it.. If I'm someone who's effective tax rate is zero, why wouldn't I vote for every tax spending bill there is? What do I care? It doesn't cost me anything and probably gets me more benefits. A classic "money for nothing" equation. Midas, while I think it's very smart of you (genius actually) to figure out how to get keep your earned income low enough so that your investment income isn't taxed, I also think that if you were paying 0%, you should not have had a vote during that time. Flat tax would solve that problem too.
Slight correction: I see a typo when I described my Macro lens. It is a f/2.8.... not f/1.8 as described in this link at eBay where I bought mine. I'm guessing you can find a similar lens for Canon.Quote:
Originally Posted by midas360
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-AF-105...item2ca27ded6c
PS. I just took a peek at KEH.com where I have purchased many products. They are primarily in the used product business, but with a very good quality control and company reputation.
Here is a lens for Canon which appears to be like the 105mm Macro lens I got. (I don't understand the Canon-specific specs, so be sure you know what you are looking at).
https://www.keh.com/284594/sigma-105...on-ef-mount-58
Thanks sly! It will be much easier walking the neighborhood too. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by siriusly_invested
A 105mm, 1.8 is a great lens that you have
Just saw your last post about that lens, The 105mm 2.8 is still good but 1.8 was super
Thanks for the 2nd opinion... always good to hear from others too. Thanks NJ!
Quote:
Originally Posted by njbones1
Last time I looked, a f/1.8 is more than I have to spend for a lens. One exception being a 35mm Nikon Prime lens which is great for semi-wide angle work such as catching lightning bolts, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by njbones1
Here's a quick demo of the 105mm Macro lens.......
PS. I estimate the lens was about 7" from the orchid.
Off to Naples, Florida...sun n fun baby...life is good! :)
Now that is a cool shot! Noice!
Quote:
Originally Posted by siriusly_invested
Don't come back DM... hope it's a one way flight with no internet access. Later Ass Wipe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SN38
Thanks SN...Hopefully he can make couple of plays and the running game carries the bulk of the load. Cassel should be ready by next week so we could see him take over if Weeden can't manage things.
Your Browns need to give Manziel a shot before week 10 and they're out of it. A full season would be good to see what they've got. Another wasted season I'm sure is not what Browns fans are hoping for. At least if he fails to show the skills of a first round pick they can lick their wounds chalk it up to a bad pick and move on sooner rather than later....GL
Good luck to everyone's teams today :)
Attachment 1471