Dave
Member
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." Yogi Berra
Posts: 4,091
|
Post by Dave on Feb 14, 2020 4:06:55 GMT -8
Good morning and a Happy Valentines Day. The pre-market is a nice shade of green this morning. Maybe the stock that we all love is going to give all of us a nice Valentines Day gift today. Let’s make some money. Apple (AAPL) Is Up 3.4% in One Week: What You Should KnowI think AAPL is a #1 (Buy) stock with a Momentum Score of A. Or at least that’s what my account balance keeps telling me.
|
|
Dave
Member
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." Yogi Berra
Posts: 4,091
|
Post by Dave on Feb 14, 2020 4:34:45 GMT -8
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,182
|
Post by JDSoCal on Feb 14, 2020 8:37:49 GMT -8
Sinn Fein are socialists. They'll find out like all socialists that governing is a lot different from being a revolutionary movement criticizing from the outside. Ireland is going to be very sorry they voted those loons in.
***
Here's an example how "Apple values" that Tim loves to brag about end up hurting the company: Court rules Apple must pay California workers during bag checksThe part they don't tell you in the story is that Apple is one of the only tech companies that does not bar its employees from class actions with forced arbitration. The rest of Silicon Valley firms bar such actions (Google employees staged a walkout over forced arbitration; Woo-hoo, go evil!). The Dems in Sacramento have tried to make such clauses illegal, but the Federal Arbitration Act has been controlling law since 1925 (the official policy of the US is that litigation should be a last resort, not first, and alternative dispute resolution is the preferred solution for the already overburdened legal system).
And yet, Apple allows its employees (and customers) to sue them for ethical, and presumably, PR reasons (just talked about this in class this week). How's that working out? As usual, Apple getting bad press, not good press, over a lawsuit that no other company would even have allowed. Big bad Apple checks bags and doesn't pay employees for those 13 seconds! When I worked security for Macy's in college I used to check employee bags. Did you know most retail theft is from employees? At least at a department store.
Oh, and the main proponent of eliminating forced arbitration is, of course, the class action bar. No eight-figure fees for lawyers in arbitration!
|
|
chinacat
Moderator
AAPL Long since 2006
Posts: 4,426
|
Post by chinacat on Feb 14, 2020 11:05:11 GMT -8
|
|
Dave
Member
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." Yogi Berra
Posts: 4,091
|
Post by Dave on Feb 14, 2020 11:41:42 GMT -8
Dealing with shoplifters has got to be rough for businesses, whether it’s from customers or employees. It seems the normal solution is to ignore the stealing and raise prices to cover the loss. Or to design packaging that is impossible to break into, which also raises the cost. Both options punish the customer. Being required to compensate the employee while waiting to be searched could be looked at as easy money by the employees. When you reward a behavior, you will get more of that behavior. Good or bad. It’s a tough problem. It hard to legislate morality.
Let me add that when I was in high school, many decades ago, there was research published that 2% ( I’m sure that percentage is much higher today) of the population is responsible for most of the need for new laws. It’s sad that the rest of the nation must suffer because of the few.
|
|
Dave
Member
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." Yogi Berra
Posts: 4,091
|
Post by Dave on Feb 14, 2020 11:44:49 GMT -8
So Microsoft designs something that doesn’t work, that’s got to be a first.
|
|
|
Post by Luckychoices on Feb 14, 2020 11:52:33 GMT -8
Sinn Fein are socialists. They'll find out like all socialists that governing is a lot different from being a revolutionary movement criticizing from the outside. Ireland is going to be very sorry they voted those loons in. ***
Here's an example how "Apple values" that Tim loves to brag about end up hurting the company: Court rules Apple must pay California workers during bag checksThe part they don't tell you in the story is that Apple is one of the only tech companies that does not bar its employees from class actions with forced arbitration. The rest of Silicon Valley firms bar such actions (Google employees staged a walkout over forced arbitration; Woo-hoo, go evil!). The Dems in Sacramento have tried to make such clauses illegal, but the Federal Arbitration Act has been controlling law since 1925 (the official policy of the US is that litigation should be a last resort, not first, and alternative dispute resolution is the preferred solution for the already overburdened legal system). And yet, Apple allows its employees (and customers) to sue them for ethical, and presumably, PR reasons (just talked about this in class this week). How's that working out? As usual, Apple getting bad press, not good press, over a lawsuit that no other company would even have allowed. Big bad Apple checks bags and doesn't pay employees for those 13 seconds! When I worked security for Macy's in college I used to check employee bags. Did you know most retail theft is from employees? At least at a department store. Oh, and the main proponent of eliminating forced arbitration is, of course, the class action bar. No eight-figure fees for lawyers in arbitration!
I didn't get too upset about what the article had to say, JD. If I were working for a company and had to clock out before the security check, I'd be pissed about any delay over a couple of minutes. If we were only talking 13 seconds, I'd certainly think the Apple employees were making much ado about nothing, but there's really no excuse, IMO, for a security check that takes 5 to 20 minutes and sometimes "...as long as 45 minutes". That's longer than it normally takes to clear security at an airport. Given the commute-time traffic in the SF Bay Area, and certainly in the LA area, I'm sure employees want to start that commute ASAP. If the security check is taking longer than a few minutes, stagger the shift times a bit, make the security check more efficient, etc. ========== >> According to court documents, Apple employees are required to clock out before submitting to an exit search which can take from five to 20 minutes. >>On the busiest days, employees say the wait time can be as long as 45 minutes. Those who refuse to have their belongings searched are subject to discipline, including termination.========== OMG, if this is a sample of the argument used to argue the case, Apple attorneys should be embarrassed. ========== >The state's high court in its decision issued on Thursday rejected Apple's argument that its employees could easily avoid a search by choosing not to bring a bag or iPhone to work.
>Quoting from a US Supreme Court decision, it noted that cell phones are "now such a pervasive and insistent part of daily life that the proverbial visitor from Mars might conclude they were an important feature of human anatomy."
>"The irony and inconsistency of Apple's argument must be noted," the court added.
>"Its characterization of the iPhone as unnecessary for its own employees is directly at odds with its description of the iPhone as an 'integrated and integral' part of the lives of everyone else."========== Granted, it's not good that it took a court decision to force Apple to make a change, but, everything considered, there are many *significantly* more important things in the recent news that have my attention and concern.
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,182
|
Post by JDSoCal on Feb 14, 2020 12:19:32 GMT -8
I didn't get too upset about what the article had to say, JD. Where did you get the impression that I was criticizing the article? I'm criticizing Apple. My main point was that they don't require arbitration, but get zero (or less) credit for it. So why not do it? Here's some great news that is long overdue: White House considering tax incentive for more Americans to buy stocks, sources sayWe need the other 40% of Americans getting into the stock market. Next up, part of Social Security contributions should be allowed in the market! THIS is how you reduce wealth inequality in the US, NOT by punishing the successful and productive class and sending people government checks.
|
|
chinacat
Moderator
AAPL Long since 2006
Posts: 4,426
|
Post by chinacat on Feb 14, 2020 12:24:13 GMT -8
So Microsoft designs something that doesn’t work, that’s got to be a first. I was more interested by how differently the two events were reported, as indicated in the title.
|
|
chinacat
Moderator
AAPL Long since 2006
Posts: 4,426
|
Post by chinacat on Feb 14, 2020 12:43:55 GMT -8
Here's some great news that is long overdue: White House considering tax incentive for more Americans to buy stocks, sources sayWe need the other 40% of Americans getting into the stock market. Next up, part of Social Security contributions should be allowed in the market! THIS is how you reduce wealth inequality in the US, NOT by punishing the successful and productive class and sending people government checks. I’m afraid that your good fortune with our favorite fruit company has caused you to lose touch with the majority of average Americans. We have two sons with families and good jobs. They are doing fine, but I doubt that either family has cash lying around that they are not investing by choice, but rather serves as a safeguard against an unexpected adverse event (and yes of course we would and do gladly help as much as needed). In addition, unless by some good fortune they find the equivalent of AAPL 10 years ago, a $10,000 investment would hardly transform their lives.
|
|
|
Post by silkstone on Feb 14, 2020 13:09:40 GMT -8
I didn't get too upset about what the article had to say, JD. Where did you get the impression that I was criticizing the article? I'm criticizing Apple. My main point was that they don't require arbitration, but get zero (or less) credit for it. So why not do it? Here's some great news that is long overdue: White House considering tax incentive for more Americans to buy stocks, sources sayWe need the other 40% of Americans getting into the stock market. Next up, part of Social Security contributions should be allowed in the market! THIS is how you reduce wealth inequality in the US, NOT by punishing the successful and productive class and sending people government checks. The rich, successful, lucky and fortunate need to help those who don’t have it so good. Not everyone is as lucky as you, there are people with handicaps, physical limitations, mental health problems and substance abuse issues who will never be able to help or take care of themselves. Most of them would love to be healthy and have a good job. Most of the people working retail, restaurants, Home Depot, Lowe’s, big box stores etc. are living paycheck to paycheck. They sometimes don’t have enough money to pay their bills much less invest in the stock market. You need to get out of your cloistered academian existence and actually talk to some people, try some empathy instead of putting down and bitching about others who want to help. Apple is a great example of a company who cares about people. Try learning from people instead of just teaching all the time.
|
|
|
Post by hyci004 on Feb 14, 2020 13:27:45 GMT -8
I used to work at the Apple Store from 06-07. It would literary take seconds to check employees bags.
|
|
|
Post by Luckychoices on Feb 14, 2020 14:00:07 GMT -8
I didn't get too upset about what the article had to say, JD. Where did you get the impression that I was criticizing the article? I'm criticizing Apple. My main point was that they don't require arbitration, but get zero (or less) credit for it. So why not do it? Where did you get the impression I thought you were criticizing the article? It was very clear to me that you were criticizing Apple but my comment was that a security check that took '...5 to 20 minutes and sometimes "...as long as 45 minutes"' was inappropriately long and Apple deserved to lose the court decision. Additionally, it was *extremely* disingenuous of Apple to suggest that, "...employees could easily avoid a search by choosing not to bring a bag or iPhone to work". Really? For a company that advertises the importance of their most purchased product? My 17-year-old grandson would know not to make that argument. Here's some great news that is long overdue: White House considering tax incentive for more Americans to buy stocks, sources sayWe need the other 40% of Americans getting into the stock market. Next up, part of Social Security contributions should be allowed in the market! THIS is how you reduce wealth inequality in the US, NOT by punishing the successful and productive class and sending people government checks. Considering how many folks seem to be unable to resist *speculating* in the stock market instead of investing, this is probably not a good idea. Perhaps the White House should consider removing the $10,000 cap on SALT (State And Local Taxes) which was introduced with the 2017 Republican tax bill. Certainly for those folks living in the high-price home markets like California and New Jersey, this would free up money that could be used for investment.
|
|
mark
fire starter
Posts: 1,552
|
Post by mark on Feb 16, 2020 10:42:02 GMT -8
Considering how many folks seem to be unable to resist *speculating* in the stock market instead of investing, this is probably not a good idea. Perhaps the White House should consider removing the $10,000 cap on SALT (State And Local Taxes) which was introduced with the 2017 Republican tax bill. Certainly for those folks living in the high-price home markets like California and New Jersey, this would free up money that could be used for investment. I never understood this deduction in the first place. Can you explain why you think that "richer" people in states that provide the best services (i.e. high state/local taxes) should pay less Federal income tax than people in states with fewer services (i.e. lower state/local taxes)? The way I see it, a person who has $100,000 income in NY should pay the same Federal income tax as someone who has $100,000 income in FL. Furthermore, why on earth should someone with a bigger house pay less Federal income tax than someone with a smaller house? It just makes no sense whatsoever!
|
|
platon
Member
"All we can know is that we know nothing. And that's the height of human wisdom.? Tolstoy
Posts: 3,944
|
Post by platon on Feb 16, 2020 15:00:16 GMT -8
Considering how many folks seem to be unable to resist *speculating* in the stock market instead of investing, this is probably not a good idea. Perhaps the White House should consider removing the $10,000 cap on SALT (State And Local Taxes) which was introduced with the 2017 Republican tax bill. Certainly for those folks living in the high-price home markets like California and New Jersey, this would free up money that could be used for investment. I never understood this deduction in the first place. Can you explain why you think that "richer" people in states that provide the best services (i.e. high state/local taxes) should pay less Federal income tax than people in states with fewer services (i.e. lower state/local taxes)? The way I see it, a person who has $100,000 income in NY should pay the same Federal income tax as someone who has $100,000 income in FL. Furthermore, why on earth should someone with a bigger house pay less Federal income tax than someone with a smaller house? It just makes no sense whatsoever! Good post Mark. I would attempt to explain why I believe SALT relief is fair tax policy in the minds of some people but I would have to do so in the Dungeon. I am glad that you asked the question though.
|
|
platon
Member
"All we can know is that we know nothing. And that's the height of human wisdom.? Tolstoy
Posts: 3,944
|
Post by platon on Feb 16, 2020 15:11:23 GMT -8
Sorry meant to post this in the Dungeon. Just an article on SALT education from 2017.
|
|
|
Post by Luckychoices on Feb 16, 2020 15:55:20 GMT -8
Considering how many folks seem to be unable to resist *speculating* in the stock market instead of investing, this is probably not a good idea. Perhaps the White House should consider removing the $10,000 cap on SALT (State And Local Taxes) which was introduced with the 2017 Republican tax bill. Certainly for those folks living in the high-price home markets like California and New Jersey, this would free up money that could be used for investment. I never understood this deduction in the first place. Can you explain why you think that "richer" people in states that provide the best services (i.e. high state/local taxes) should pay less Federal income tax than people in states with fewer services (i.e. lower state/local taxes)? The way I see it, a person who has $100,000 income in NY should pay the same Federal income tax as someone who has $100,000 income in FL. Mark, first let me say that I *don't* think that "richer" people in states that provide the best services (i.e. high state/local taxes) should pay less Federal income tax than people in states with fewer services (i.e. lower state/local taxes)", and I don't really see how I made it appear that I do. Perhaps it was when I used the phrase, "high-price home markets" but let me explain my reasons for using that phrase. I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, commonly referred to as Silicon Valley, and have lived here for 63 years. Prior to its fame as a center of high tech industry, the Santa Clara Valley was primarily known for its orchards and was the largest fruit-producing and packing region in the world en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_ValleyWith the rise of the high tech industry, the home prices rose right along with it. The first attachment below is a photo of a 2 bedroom, 2.5 bath, 1,100-square-foot townhome that, before Christmas 2019, was listed as part of an affordable housing program and, at $274K, was available *only* to families of 4 making less than $132,000/year. It's valued by Zillow at $1.1M and, when I did a $1.1M townhome search in the state of Florida on Zillow, I found numerous listings for townhomes with 4 bedrooms, 5 bathrooms and 3800+ square feet. Double the bedrooms, double the bathrooms and 3 times the square footage of the 1.1 million dollar townhome available for a low income family in this area. The second attachment is the home that's right next door to the 3 bedroom, 2 bath home my younger son and his wife purchased in 2004 for approximately $500,000. The information for the third attachment is 2791 Custer Dr San Jose, CA 95124 3 beds 2 baths 1,136 sqft SOLD: $995,000 Sold on 12/30/19 Zestimate®: $1,008,970 So, why am I showing you these images? It's because million dollar homes are the rule, rather than the exception in this area. Not because folks are rich, but because the home prices are so much higher than in many other states. And I'm not convinced at all that folks in this area are getting the "best services", as you described it, just because our state and local taxes are high. I agree that folks who make the same amount of income should pay the same amount of federal taxes so, perhaps, in order to do that, the deduction for state and local taxes should be eliminated for everyone. Of course, that means that folks who are struggling financially to be home owners will probably be unable to stay in their home. Not a good solution, IMO. Furthermore, why on earth should someone with a bigger house pay less Federal income tax than someone with a smaller house? It just makes no sense whatsoever! Actually, put another way, why should someone with a modest 3 bedroom, 2 bath, 1600 square foot home, for which they had to pay $1M in the SF Bay Area, have to pay *higher* federal income tax than a person who lives in an area where $1M would buy a relative mansion and $10,000 would *easily* cover the state and local taxes? Please remember that I wasn't complaining about the SALT cap, I was suggesting that there are many folks in this and other areas that would benefit more by removal of the cap rather than trying to gin up a way for folks to invest in the stock market, where that money could be quite easily lost with one speculative investment. Hope that explains my comment and I don't think we're too far apart regarding fairness with regards to the Federal income tax.
|
|
mark
fire starter
Posts: 1,552
|
Post by mark on Feb 16, 2020 17:10:03 GMT -8
Furthermore, why on earth should someone with a bigger house pay less Federal income tax than someone with a smaller house? It just makes no sense whatsoever! Actually, put another way, why should someone with a modest 3 bedroom, 2 bath, 1600 square foot home, for which they had to pay $1M in the SF Bay Area, have to pay *higher* federal income tax than a person who lives in an area where $1M would buy a relative mansion and $10,000 would *easily* cover the state and local taxes?Please remember that I wasn't complaining about the SALT cap, I was suggesting that there are many folks in this and other areas that would benefit more by removal of the cap rather than trying to gin up a way for folks to invest in the stock market, where that money could be quite easily lost with one speculative investment. Hope that explains my comment and I don't think we're too far apart regarding fairness with regards to the Federal income tax. They should NOT pay more ... if they each have the same income, they should each pay the exact same amount of Federal income tax! That's why it's called an INCOME tax. I think I may not have been clear enough. Point 1 - States that have high taxes CLEARLY provide more services, after all, every penny of that tax money goes to provide past, present, or future services within that state! So the question again is, why should people in states with more services (higher state taxes) pay less Federal income than people in states with less services (lower state taxes). Point 2 - Within a state, or even within half a mile, if two people earn the exact same income, and one of them CHOOSES to buy a $1M house (with an $800k mortgage), and the second one CHOOSES to buy a $500k house (with a $400k mortgage), why should the first person pay less Federal income tax than the second person? It makes no sense whatsoever. I mean seriously - who in their right mind would say that the guy who lives in a $1M house should pay less income tax than a guy who lives in a $500k house?! The Federal government should not change its income tax policy based on where a person chooses to live, or which house a person chooses to buy. And, yes, I've long argued that there should be no personal deductions at all. Earned income is $100k, pay federal income tax on $100k. Earn $200k, pay on $200k. No matter where you live, and no matter how you choose to live - house, apartment, condo, rented, owned, whatever. In other words, the SALT deduction should be zero. I also think there should be no personal exemptions (and I have 5 kids!), how could it possibly be the Federal governments business how many kids you have or don't have? It's a personal choice.
|
|
|
Post by Luckychoices on Feb 16, 2020 18:45:00 GMT -8
Actually, put another way, why should someone with a modest 3 bedroom, 2 bath, 1600 square foot home, for which they had to pay $1M in the SF Bay Area, have to pay *higher* federal income tax than a person who lives in an area where $1M would buy a relative mansion and $10,000 would *easily* cover the state and local taxes?Please remember that I wasn't complaining about the SALT cap, I was suggesting that there are many folks in this and other areas that would benefit more by removal of the cap rather than trying to gin up a way for folks to invest in the stock market, where that money could be quite easily lost with one speculative investment. Hope that explains my comment and I don't think we're too far apart regarding fairness with regards to the Federal income tax. They should NOT pay more ... if they each have the same income, they should each pay the exact same amount of Federal income tax! That's why it's called an INCOME tax. I don't disagree. I think I may not have been clear enough. Point 1 - States that have high taxes CLEARLY provide more services, after all, every penny of that tax money goes to provide past, present, or future services within that state! So the question again is, why should people in states with more services (higher state taxes) pay less Federal income than people in states with less services (lower state taxes). If you feel that that's true, that "the states that have high taxes CLEARLY provide more services than the states with lower taxes", I won't argue with you...but you CLEARLY have no possible way to know that this is true unless you've done a comprehensive study of services provided to all of the states based on the state and local taxes of that state. Point 2 - Within a state, or even within half a mile, if two people earn the exact same income, and one of them CHOOSES to buy a $1M house (with an $800k mortgage), and the second one CHOOSES to buy a $500k house (with a $400k mortgage), why should the first person pay less Federal income tax than the second person? It makes no sense whatsoever. I mean seriously - who in their right mind would say that the guy who lives in a $1M house should pay less income that than a guy who lives in a $500k house?! The Federal government should not change it's income tax policy based on where a person chooses to live, or which house a person chooses to buy. I have no idea where you live, Mark, but I was only trying to make the point that there are no $500K homes in this area unless one's personal safety is unimportant. The choice is between a home or no home, not between a $1M home or $500K home. And, yes, I've long argued that there should be no personal deductions at all. Earned income is $100k, pay federal income tax on $100k. Earn $200k, pay on $200k. No matter where you live, and no matter how you choose to live - house, apartment, condo, rented, owned, whatever. In other words, the SALT deduction should be zero. I also think there should be no personal exemptions (and I have 5 kids!), how could it possibly be the Federal governments business how many kids you have or don't have? It's a personal choice. OK, I think we're now getting to the crux of the problem. You've "long argued that there should be no personal deductions at all" and I made a, now obvious, mistake in mentioning the SALT tax while arguing against the plan to give a tax break so lower income folks could invest in the stock market. I have no reason to want to argue with you but I'm interested in why you only chose to respond to me instead of also responding to: " The proposal, one of many new tax cuts under consideration, would see a portion of household income treated as tax-free for the purposes of investing outside a traditional 401(k). Under one scenario, a household earning up to $200,000 could invest $10,000 on a tax-free basis, although officials noted these numbers are fluid." Seriously, how can you be so upset about *my* comment regarding personal deductions and yet JD's post about a possible *new* deduction, for those making $200K or less, elicits no response from you, whatsoever?
|
|
mark
fire starter
Posts: 1,552
|
Post by mark on Feb 16, 2020 20:43:26 GMT -8
" The proposal, one of many new tax cuts under consideration, would see a portion of household income treated as tax-free for the purposes of investing outside a traditional 401(k). Under one scenario, a household earning up to $200,000 could invest $10,000 on a tax-free basis, although officials noted these numbers are fluid." Seriously, how can you be so upset about *my* comment regarding personal deductions and yet JD's post about a possible *new* deduction, for those making $200K or less, elicits no response from you, whatsoever? 1. You'll have to trust me, Luckychoices , I am not picking on you. It's just that SALT deductions (and deductions in general) is something I've discussed for a long time. Maybe it's even close to a pet peeve.... 2. I prefer discussing real things that actually exist. The SALT deduction exists and is quantifiable. The new thing is simply a proposal which may or may not ever see the light of day. 3. For those who believe in a progressive tax system, the things that "bend" it at odd places, especially ones that cause "bends" above the lower brackets, ought to be strongly suspect. SALT deduction is one of those things, and that's why it is so odd that those who clamor for a *more* progressive system, and support the principle of "tax the rich", are so oddly in favor of it. It's just plain weird. 4. As far as new plan that treats a certain level of investing as non-taxable income is more like exempting the first $XX,000 from any taxation at all (which applies to all of us). When applied only to incomes below a certain threshold, it's like the other things that only apply below certain thresholds (0% capital gains tax rate, EITC, etc). That doesn't bend the progressively, it just pushes more people into the group that pays zero or negative Federal income tax. It's a different discussion.
|
|
|
Post by rickag on Feb 17, 2020 5:40:57 GMT -8
I never understood this deduction in the first place. Can you explain why you think that "richer" people in states that provide the best services (i.e. high state/local taxes) should pay less Federal income tax than people in states with fewer services (i.e. lower state/local taxes)? The way I see it, a person who has $100,000 income in NY should pay the same Federal income tax as someone who has $100,000 income in FL. Mark, first let me say that I *don't* think that "richer" people in states that provide the best services (i.e. high state/local taxes) should pay less Federal income tax than people in states with fewer services (i.e. lower state/local taxes)", and I don't really see how I made it appear that I do. Perhaps it was when I used the phrase, "high-price home markets" but let me explain my reasons for using that phrase. I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, commonly referred to as Silicon Valley, and have lived here for 63 years. Prior to its fame as a center of high tech industry, the Santa Clara Valley was primarily known for its orchards and was the largest fruit-producing and packing region in the world en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_ValleyWith the rise of the high tech industry, the home prices rose right along with it. The first attachment below is a photo of a 2 bedroom, 2.5 bath, 1,100-square-foot townhome that, before Christmas 2019, was listed as part of an affordable housing program and, at $274K, was available *only* to families of 4 making less than $132,000/year. It's valued by Zillow at $1.1M and, when I did a $1.1M townhome search in the state of Florida on Zillow, I found numerous listings for townhomes with 4 bedrooms, 5 bathrooms and 3800+ square feet. Double the bedrooms, double the bathrooms and 3 times the square footage of the 1.1 million dollar townhome available for a low income family in this area. The second attachment is the home that's right next door to the 3 bedroom, 2 bath home my younger son and his wife purchased in 2004 for approximately $500,000. The information for the third attachment is 2791 Custer Dr San Jose, CA 95124 3 beds 2 baths 1,136 sqft SOLD: $995,000 Sold on 12/30/19 Zestimate®: $1,008,970 View AttachmentView AttachmentView AttachmentSo, why am I showing you these images? It's because million dollar homes are the rule, rather than the exception in this area. Not because folks are rich, but because the home prices are so much higher than in many other states. And I'm not convinced at all that folks in this area are getting the "best services", as you described it, just because our state and local taxes are high. I agree that folks who make the same amount of income should pay the same amount of federal taxes so, perhaps, in order to do that, the deduction for state and local taxes should be eliminated for everyone. Of course, that means that folks who are struggling financially to be home owners will probably be unable to stay in their home. Not a good solution, IMO. Furthermore, why on earth should someone with a bigger house pay less Federal income tax than someone with a smaller house? It just makes no sense whatsoever! Actually, put another way, why should someone with a modest 3 bedroom, 2 bath, 1600 square foot home, for which they had to pay $1M in the SF Bay Area, have to pay *higher* federal income tax than a person who lives in an area where $1M would buy a relative mansion and $10,000 would *easily* cover the state and local taxes? Please remember that I wasn't complaining about the SALT cap, I was suggesting that there are many folks in this and other areas that would benefit more by removal of the cap rather than trying to gin up a way for folks to invest in the stock market, where that money could be quite easily lost with one speculative investment. Hope that explains my comment and I don't think we're too far apart regarding fairness with regards to the Federal income tax. It is not my fault people CHOOSE to live in those areas. It is ESPECIALLY not my responsibility to make up the difference in housing costs through federal tax breaks for those people. Through stiffer regulations the cost of home building is higher in those areas. Through corporate tax incentives luring business, population density is beyond the reasonable expectations of the market and economy. www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jul/12/apple-headquarters-most-expensive-buildingsIf it costs too much to buy a home move. Due to economic choices made by state, city & county elected officials voted for by i ts residents I should not be held responsible at the federal level. It’s your choices made in the past and currently, it’s your responsibility to either move or fix it.
|
|
|
Post by Luckychoices on Feb 17, 2020 12:34:18 GMT -8
It is not my fault people CHOOSE to live in those areas. It is ESPECIALLY not my responsibility to make up the difference in housing costs through federal tax breaks for those people. Good job demolishing those two snowmen you built. No one said it's your *fault* people choose to live in those areas or your responsibility to make up the difference. But I hope you feel better getting that off your chest. Through stiffer regulations the cost of home building is higher in those areas. Ah, it's stiffer regulations that increase the cost of home building. That's good to know. I wish I could vote for someone who promises to get rid of all those *pesky* regulations that are increasing the cost of doing business in this country. /s Glad to see you're getting your information from a news source like The Guardian. And kudos to them for posting this comment on the bottom of the page: ============== America faces an epic choice... ... this year, and the results will define the country for a generation. These are perilous times. Over the last three years, much of what the Guardian holds dear has been threatened – democracy, civility, truth. This US administration is establishing new norms of behaviour. Anger and cruelty disfigure public discourse and lying is commonplace. Truth is being chased away. But with your help we can continue to put it center stage. Rampant disinformation, partisan news sources and social media's tsunami of fake news is no basis on which to inform the American public in 2020. ============== Since you're so upset about companies that are "luring business" and increasing population density, I'm sure you'll be careful to not *accidentally* invest in any of those companies..certainly none of the companies that have a large presence in major cities in this country. If it costs too much to buy a home move. I'm sure you're not talking to me at this point, since I already have a home. You're instead suggesting those who have difficulty affording a home should move. As to where they should move and what jobs might be available in this new area to support themselves and their family is not your concern. Or mine, for that matter. And, hopefully, they don't all relocate to the same cities because, you know, "increasing population density". empathy: the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. Due to economic choices made by state, city & county elected officials voted for by i ts residents I should not be held responsible at the federal level. It’s your choices made in the past and currently, it’s your responsibility to either move or fix it. Again with the "move or fix it". As I've already said, I have a home. And these continuing irate responses to my original comment regarding the so-called "...tax incentive for more Americans to buy stock" has already wasted way too many minutes of my life. I find it incredible that there can be so much concern about what *I* said regarding the SALT cap, but nobody seems to care about a *new* tax incentive for those making less than 200K a year...that would also have to have the effect of increasing other people's taxes. After all, if a person making less than $200K were to take the suggested incentive, they would be paying less tax than a different person, also making <200K, that *didn't* take the tax incentive. And yet *that* proposal draws crickets in response. So, any benefits to taxpayers from the SALT deduction is horrible and must be condemned but the suggestion of yet another *new* deduction is no big deal. Got it! Let me just say this, as my absolutely last comment on the topic. My wife and I pay a great deal more state and federal taxes now that we're retired, than we did when we were both still working full time. Do I resent paying more taxes? Heck no, we're fortunate that our circumstances require it. I do, however, hate to see American tax dollars wasted at the federal or state level. We have our taxes done by an account each year, but don't use a tax attorney to try to squeeze very last dollar or cheat on our taxes. And I'm so confident that we're paying our fair share of taxes, according to the present tax code, that if I decide to run for political office when I get older, I'll *willingly* disclose my past 10 years of tax returns without a court battle. Meanwhile, since I'm removing myself from this back-and-forth, perhaps you can use the following information to keep your rage level high: 91 Fortune 500 companies paid no federal income tax in 201891 Fortune 500 companies paid no federal income tax in 2018. 91 Fortune 500 companies paid no federal income taxes on their U.S. income last year, according to a report released Monday by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.
Why it matters: Some of the companies that paid no federal income tax last year still made billions of dollars — and they include some of the country's biggest names, like Amazon, Chevron, Halliburton and IBM.
The big picture: The 379 profitable members of the Fortune 500 paid an effective federal tax rate of 11.3% last year — almost half of the 21% corporate rate established under President Trump's 2017 tax revamp.
That effective rate was the lowest since the organization began publishing its corporate tax studies in 1984. Large companies were able to pay lower rates through a combination of deductions, tax breaks and other loopholes. Had those companies paid the statutory 21% rate on their profits, they would have collectively owed the federal government an additional $73.9 billion. The state of play: Despite strong economic growth, the federal deficit is soaring. In the first 11 months of fiscal year 2019, it exceeded $1 trillion and has already hit $342 billion for the first two months of 2020's fiscal year.
The lower corporate tax rate isn't the sole driver of the deficit, but it certainly contributes. Corporate tax revenue dropped from about $297 billion in 2017 to $204 billion in 2018.
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,182
|
Post by JDSoCal on Feb 17, 2020 18:36:59 GMT -8
It is not my fault people CHOOSE to live in those areas. It is ESPECIALLY not my responsibility to make up the difference in housing costs through federal tax breaks for those people. Good job demolishing those two snowmen you built. No one said it's your *fault* people choose to live in those areas or your responsibility to make up the difference. But I hope you feel better getting that off your chest. Through stiffer regulations the cost of home building is higher in those areas. Ah, it's stiffer regulations that increase the cost of home building. That's good to know. I wish I could vote for someone who promises to get rid of all those *pesky* regulations that are increasing the cost of doing business in this country. /s Glad to see you're getting your information from a news source like The Guardian. And kudos to them for posting this comment on the bottom of the page: ============== America faces an epic choice... ... this year, and the results will define the country for a generation. These are perilous times. Over the last three years, much of what the Guardian holds dear has been threatened – democracy, civility, truth. This US administration is establishing new norms of behaviour. Anger and cruelty disfigure public discourse and lying is commonplace. Truth is being chased away. But with your help we can continue to put it center stage. Rampant disinformation, partisan news sources and social media's tsunami of fake news is no basis on which to inform the American public in 2020. ============== Since you're so upset about companies that are "luring business" and increasing population density, I'm sure you'll be careful to not *accidentally* invest in any of those companies..certainly none of the companies that have a large presence in major cities in this country. If it costs too much to buy a home move. I'm sure you're not talking to me at this point, since I already have a home. You're instead suggesting those who have difficulty affording a home should move. As to where they should move and what jobs might be available in this new area to support themselves and their family is not your concern. Or mine, for that matter. And, hopefully, they don't all relocate to the same cities because, you know, "increasing population density". empathy: the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. Due to economic choices made by state, city & county elected officials voted for by i ts residents I should not be held responsible at the federal level. It’s your choices made in the past and currently, it’s your responsibility to either move or fix it. Again with the "move or fix it". As I've already said, I have a home. And these continuing irate responses to my original comment regarding the so-called "...tax incentive for more Americans to buy stock" has already wasted way too many minutes of my life. I find it incredible that there can be so much concern about what *I* said regarding the SALT cap, but nobody seems to care about a *new* tax incentive for those making less than 200K a year...that would also have to have the effect of increasing other people's taxes. After all, if a person making less than $200K were to take the suggested incentive, they would be paying less tax than a different person, also making <200K, that *didn't* take the tax incentive. And yet *that* proposal draws crickets in response. So, any benefits to taxpayers from the SALT deduction is horrible and must be condemned but the suggestion of yet another *new* deduction is no big deal. Got it! Let me just say this, as my absolutely last comment on the topic. My wife and I pay a great deal more state and federal taxes now that we're retired, than we did when we were both still working full time. Do I resent paying more taxes? Heck no, we're fortunate that our circumstances require it. I do, however, hate to see American tax dollars wasted at the federal or state level. We have our taxes done by an account each year, but don't use a tax attorney to try to squeeze very last dollar or cheat on our taxes. And I'm so confident that we're paying our fair share of taxes, according to the present tax code, that if I decide to run for political office when I get older, I'll *willingly* disclose my past 10 years of tax returns without a court battle. Meanwhile, since I'm removing myself from this back-and-forth, perhaps you can use the following information to keep your rage level high: 91 Fortune 500 companies paid no federal income tax in 201891 Fortune 500 companies paid no federal income tax in 2018. 91 Fortune 500 companies paid no federal income taxes on their U.S. income last year, according to a report released Monday by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.
Why it matters: Some of the companies that paid no federal income tax last year still made billions of dollars — and they include some of the country's biggest names, like Amazon, Chevron, Halliburton and IBM.
The big picture: The 379 profitable members of the Fortune 500 paid an effective federal tax rate of 11.3% last year — almost half of the 21% corporate rate established under President Trump's 2017 tax revamp.
That effective rate was the lowest since the organization began publishing its corporate tax studies in 1984. Large companies were able to pay lower rates through a combination of deductions, tax breaks and other loopholes. Had those companies paid the statutory 21% rate on their profits, they would have collectively owed the federal government an additional $73.9 billion. The state of play: Despite strong economic growth, the federal deficit is soaring. In the first 11 months of fiscal year 2019, it exceeded $1 trillion and has already hit $342 billion for the first two months of 2020's fiscal year.
The lower corporate tax rate isn't the sole driver of the deficit, but it certainly contributes. Corporate tax revenue dropped from about $297 billion in 2017 to $204 billion in 2018.
Actually, the Treasury reported *record* revenues in 2019 and is expected to do so for 2020. I’m not going to play cut-the-deficit games because if DJT tried to cut a single penny from the federal budget, we all know what the Dems and their lapdog media would say (Grinch, killing poor people, blah blah blah). And I’m not going to cry that the Feds can’t steal more money with their double and triple taxation schemes.
|
|