Egypt's economics and the US's
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Everything costs 20-30% more when you start charging federal sales tax in addition to the existing state sales tax.
With no corporate taxes to pass on, as well the differential between take home and nominal salary having disappeared, I wouldn't be surprised if the cost of most items remained about the same, and some might even drop. Besides, they're used to it. The percentage of consumption taxes paid by Europeans is about 250% of what we pay over here. I'd say that the strength or weakness of a country's currency has much more to do with the perceived cost of goods due to advantageous or otherwise conversion rate. And since every tax-payer would be getting a nice raise in their take-home check, national tourism would probably increase. ;)
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
Oakman wrote:
With no corporate taxes to pass on, as well the differential between take home and nominal salary having disappeared, I wouldn't be surprised if the cost of most items remained about the same, and some might even drop.
Perhaps, but I'd like to see some economists' views on that before jumping to such conclusions.
Oakman wrote:
Besides, they're used to it. The percentage of consumption taxes paid by Europeans is about 250% of what we pay over here. I'd say that the strength or weakness of a country's currency has much more to do with the perceived cost of goods due to advantageous or otherwise conversion rate.
As I said, it wouldn't STOP tourism, but it would reduce it. Yes, the exchange rate matters, but if the price goes up by 20%, some percentage of people WILL decide to go elsewhere.
Oakman wrote:
And since every tax-payer would be getting a nice raise in their take-home check, national tourism would probably increase.
The increased take-home pay is partially cancelled out by the increased cost of living... The effects depend on the difference between the two factors.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Oakman wrote:
With no corporate taxes to pass on, as well the differential between take home and nominal salary having disappeared, I wouldn't be surprised if the cost of most items remained about the same, and some might even drop.
Perhaps, but I'd like to see some economists' views on that before jumping to such conclusions.
Oakman wrote:
Besides, they're used to it. The percentage of consumption taxes paid by Europeans is about 250% of what we pay over here. I'd say that the strength or weakness of a country's currency has much more to do with the perceived cost of goods due to advantageous or otherwise conversion rate.
As I said, it wouldn't STOP tourism, but it would reduce it. Yes, the exchange rate matters, but if the price goes up by 20%, some percentage of people WILL decide to go elsewhere.
Oakman wrote:
And since every tax-payer would be getting a nice raise in their take-home check, national tourism would probably increase.
The increased take-home pay is partially cancelled out by the increased cost of living... The effects depend on the difference between the two factors.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
As I said, it wouldn't STOP tourism, but it would reduce it.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Perhaps, but I'd like to see some economists' views on that before jumping to such conclusions.
Of course. And we shouldn't jump to the opposite conclusion, either.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The increased take-home pay is partially cancelled out by the increased cost of living... The effects depend on the difference between the two factors.
And here I encourage you to explore the site I linked with. They have spent a great deal of brain-hours working on this idea. I came to it highly skeptical, almost sure that it was just another way for the rich to get richer, but kept an open mind and learned a thing or two.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
As I said, it wouldn't STOP tourism, but it would reduce it.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Perhaps, but I'd like to see some economists' views on that before jumping to such conclusions.
Of course. And we shouldn't jump to the opposite conclusion, either.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The increased take-home pay is partially cancelled out by the increased cost of living... The effects depend on the difference between the two factors.
And here I encourage you to explore the site I linked with. They have spent a great deal of brain-hours working on this idea. I came to it highly skeptical, almost sure that it was just another way for the rich to get richer, but kept an open mind and learned a thing or two.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
Oakman wrote:
Of course. And we shouldn't jump to the opposite conclusion, either.
Fair enough, but it seems to me that if things are more expensive, people would be less likely to visit... How much less likely is of course open to debate... Obviously other effects could counterbalance the price increase.
Oakman wrote:
And here I encourage you to explore the site I linked with. They have spent a great deal of brain-hours working on this idea. I came to it highly skeptical, almost sure that it was just another way for the rich to get richer, but kept an open mind and learned a thing or two.
I took a quick look through it... As I said, it's interesting... I'm extremely skeptical about it, but I don't claim to be an economist.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Oakman wrote:
In 1980, with Jimmy Carter as president, the top 1% of tax-filers, those who reported an adjusted growth income of $80,580 or more, paid 19% of all federal income taxes. Ten years later the same top 1% of tax-payers was paying 25% of all taxes. By 2005, our top 1% were paying nearly 40 percent of the federal income tax bill, while those in the 2nd to 5th percentile paid another 20 percent.
Is the median income keeping up with inflation or did it stagnate reflecting the burden you're pointing out? Besides IRS tax rate for federal income taxes over the years gives them nothing to complain about. It's been a whole lot higher. Check out historical tax rates[^]. I'd give the IRS version, but I can't find it right now. If stock options can be given as income why aren't they taxed at the same rate? Because the law is written not to. I read the same reports you did about it. Its interesting that the fact that companies like GE didn't pay any taxes at all through creative accounting practices and tax loop holes.
Oakman wrote:
In a democracy, progressive taxes are always favored by politicians who want to be re-elected. Sooner or later, of course, the goose that lays the golden eggs just can't keep up with demand, and then we have a revolution.
So what are you really saying?
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
Some of the information I've heard about the complaints of the people revolting in Tunisia and Egypt has been that the people are getting poorer while the rich are getting richer. I've heard similar things here. What have you heard about the middle class of these countries as well as your own? From what I've read and heard discussed economics is what's driving this. It seems governments are only willing to go a certain distance in any particular direction or risk massive protests or in the case of the middle east revolts. I suppose they're a lot closer to the economic bottom than the industrialized countries.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
Tax evasion by the rich does place an unequal burden on the poor, which is the reason I support a shift in taxaiton from income to spending by increasing VAT and reducing income tax. That way everyone pays tax based purely on their consumption.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
Tax evasion by the rich does place an unequal burden on the poor, which is the reason I support a shift in taxaiton from income to spending by increasing VAT and reducing income tax. That way everyone pays tax based purely on their consumption.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
The VAT tax is relatively easy to evade with buying goods from a foreign countries/different states. Also you have to be very careful to increase the VAT only for the luxury goods. If you have a flat VAT tax increasing it will automatically increase to food prices thus hitting badly the poor/retired people since the most of their income is going for food and clothing. This is very good implemented in US; you have zero VAT for the food unless it’s processed food.
There is only one Ashley Judd and Salma Hayek is her prophet! Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
Tax evasion by the rich does place an unequal burden on the poor, which is the reason I support a shift in taxaiton from income to spending by increasing VAT and reducing income tax. That way everyone pays tax based purely on their consumption.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
fat_boy wrote:
Tax evasion
I think you mean tax avoidance which isn't illegal the way tax evasion is. It may be true in the UK, but this has been shown to be a myth in the U.S. The percentage of income paid in taxes by the very rich and the rich is higher than that of the middle class.
fat_boy wrote:
unequal burden on the poor
I remember reading that, like the US, almost 50% of the people living in England pay no income tax at all. The burden, I would guess, if there is one, would fall in the middle class. The problem with your VAT is it is a snowball. The same product gets taxed over and over again - leading to Britain having gas prices that are twice what America has.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
-
wolfbinary wrote:
If stock options can be given as income why aren't they taxed at the same rate? Because the law is written not to.
Your statement belies your ignorance of how stock options work. It all depends on how stock options are "cashed-in". For most stock option holders, who are unable to simply buy the option outright, they have to do what's called a cashless exercise (basically borrow money from the brokerage to buy the stock at the strike price and then immediately sell the stock at market or a given price). The profits then *are* indeed taxed as normal income. In order for them not to be taxed as normal income, you would have to have the money to buy the stock option at the strike price and hold onto the stock for one year and a day (and hope that the stock price remains greater than the strike price). You could then sell the stock and only pay a 15% or 20% capital gains tax on your gains ((current price - strike price) * number of shares). *Extremely few* people are able to do that.
"If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams "Let me get this straight. You know her. She knows you. But she wants to eat him. And everybody's okay with this?"
ahmed zahmed wrote:
Your statement belies your ignorance of how stock options work.
And yours demonstrates your lack of understanding of the English language. Unless you meant that his statement shows that he is not ignorant of how stock options work.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
-
Some of the information I've heard about the complaints of the people revolting in Tunisia and Egypt has been that the people are getting poorer while the rich are getting richer. I've heard similar things here. What have you heard about the middle class of these countries as well as your own? From what I've read and heard discussed economics is what's driving this. It seems governments are only willing to go a certain distance in any particular direction or risk massive protests or in the case of the middle east revolts. I suppose they're a lot closer to the economic bottom than the industrialized countries.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
Income inequality has been growing in this country for some time. In 1976 the top 1% received 9% of the income. Now that number has increased to 24%. 33% of the increases in income during that period went to the very top. The bottom 60% are actually making less - about 95 cents on the dollar. Economic mobility is much less here than in most European countries. A poor American is less likely to see his children move up the economic ladder than a German parent. It is perfectly reasonable for a society to use Estate taxes and progressive income taxes to redistribute wealth. We have set up an economic system that tends to concentrate the wealth and government policys are appropriate tools to correct for that. Organized labor is also a useful component in giving labor a voice to compete with the power of capital. Unfortunately organized labor in the private sector has been mostly destroyed and now public labor unions are coming under attack. Interesting side note in this chart[^] The US has a higher Gini coefficient than Egypt. In other words there is more income inequality in the US than in Egypt.
-
wolfbinary wrote:
If stock options can be given as income why aren't they taxed at the same rate? Because the law is written not to.
Your statement belies your ignorance of how stock options work. It all depends on how stock options are "cashed-in". For most stock option holders, who are unable to simply buy the option outright, they have to do what's called a cashless exercise (basically borrow money from the brokerage to buy the stock at the strike price and then immediately sell the stock at market or a given price). The profits then *are* indeed taxed as normal income. In order for them not to be taxed as normal income, you would have to have the money to buy the stock option at the strike price and hold onto the stock for one year and a day (and hope that the stock price remains greater than the strike price). You could then sell the stock and only pay a 15% or 20% capital gains tax on your gains ((current price - strike price) * number of shares). *Extremely few* people are able to do that.
"If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams "Let me get this straight. You know her. She knows you. But she wants to eat him. And everybody's okay with this?"
Getting stock as compensation is income. US law just doesn't see it that way. Selling it or cashing it in just turns it into money which can be taxed. I don't agree with stock as compensation because it is a tax evasion technique employed by company executives.
ahmed zahmed wrote:
Your statement belies your ignorance of how stock options work.
I'm not ignorant. I just don't care how it turns into money. It's compensation that is income. I already know about capital gains tax. The starting value was never taxed and taking a difference isn't enough. It's a pittance in comparison to actually taxing the starting price. They got income at the beginning and income again when it went up when the person sells it. I'd call it a sales tax of sorts.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
wolfbinary wrote:
From what I can tell the hating of America happened because of our blind support of Isreal and the quest for natural resources from groups of people we neither cared to understand or wanted to. These are problems from the 1950s and 1960s at least.
Actually, it started when we entered WWII. We won, and that's the biggest sin of all.
wolfbinary wrote:
If you said that about the president of your company they could fire you for no reason or little and nothing could be done.
If you said it about Chris where he could read it, he could ban you from CP. If you said it about me in my house, I could throw you out.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
Oakman wrote:
If you said it about Chris where he could read it, he could ban you from CP. If you said it about me in my house, I could throw you out.
Chris has a much higher sense of freedom of speech then most, it would seem. Besides he isn't so I wouldn't ;P .
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
Oakman wrote:
If you said it about Chris where he could read it, he could ban you from CP. If you said it about me in my house, I could throw you out.
Chris has a much higher sense of freedom of speech then most, it would seem. Besides he isn't so I wouldn't ;P .
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
wolfbinary wrote:
For one why would I say that about Chris and two where did that come from?
for one, same place where you decided Slacker would say it about his boss. for two: Perhaps I was a little abstract. My point was that private people have control over private property whereas you seemed to think that if Slacker spoke without respect to his boss, his boss shouldn't react. In other words: Sure your boss can fire you - nothing in the Constitution says he can't. Sure Chris can ban you (or me), this is his website and he can determine the membership requirements any way he wishes. The danger, to my mind, would be when the government starts telling your boss, or Chris that he doesn't have the authority to go with the responsibility of his position.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
-
Getting stock as compensation is income. US law just doesn't see it that way. Selling it or cashing it in just turns it into money which can be taxed. I don't agree with stock as compensation because it is a tax evasion technique employed by company executives.
ahmed zahmed wrote:
Your statement belies your ignorance of how stock options work.
I'm not ignorant. I just don't care how it turns into money. It's compensation that is income. I already know about capital gains tax. The starting value was never taxed and taking a difference isn't enough. It's a pittance in comparison to actually taxing the starting price. They got income at the beginning and income again when it went up when the person sells it. I'd call it a sales tax of sorts.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
wolfbinary wrote:
I just don't care how it turns into money.
Perhaps you don't understand as much as you think. A stock option is an agreement between two parties that one may buy something from the other at such and such a price some time in the future. It is never taxed because it has no value, it is simply a contract agreeing to a price. When you sign your name on a credit card, you are also signing a contract to pay for goods to be delivered at a mutually agreed upon time. (Ethical merchants never charge your card until they deliver the goods, so the contract can be for some time in the future just like a stock option.) You are not taxed because you signed it and neither is the person who has agreed to accept your money. If you were, you could be taxed on a stock option that you never exercised. Capital gains has nothing really to do with stock options. It has to do with buying and then selling certain classes of things that appreciate in value.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
-
Getting stock as compensation is income. US law just doesn't see it that way. Selling it or cashing it in just turns it into money which can be taxed. I don't agree with stock as compensation because it is a tax evasion technique employed by company executives.
ahmed zahmed wrote:
Your statement belies your ignorance of how stock options work.
I'm not ignorant. I just don't care how it turns into money. It's compensation that is income. I already know about capital gains tax. The starting value was never taxed and taking a difference isn't enough. It's a pittance in comparison to actually taxing the starting price. They got income at the beginning and income again when it went up when the person sells it. I'd call it a sales tax of sorts.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
wolfbinary wrote:
I don't agree with stock as compensation because it is a tax evasion technique employed by company executives.
Bit of a nitpick... The main point of stock options isn't to evade taxes (I'm not saying it doesn't do that... Just saying that's not the primary goal)... Well, the two main points... They are: 1) Motivate the employees by linking their profits to the company's profits. They have a reason to work harder, because if the company makes more money, their stock becomes more valuable. 2) Discourage employees from leaving. I don't know if this is primarily a wall street thing, or if it's universal, but the stock compensation I've seen always has a vesting period of 3-5 years... If you leave the company before it vests, you forfeit it (If they downsize you, it generally vests immediately - It only gets left behind if you choose to resign). And you can't sell it until it's fully vested. It's a nasty trick, that last part... If you're being compensated in stock, then you're basically giving up 3-5 years of pay if you decide to change jobs. Makes me glad I'm just a geek, not a trader, as we little guys generally get paid in 100% cash instead of stock.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
wolfbinary wrote:
I just don't care how it turns into money.
Perhaps you don't understand as much as you think. A stock option is an agreement between two parties that one may buy something from the other at such and such a price some time in the future. It is never taxed because it has no value, it is simply a contract agreeing to a price. When you sign your name on a credit card, you are also signing a contract to pay for goods to be delivered at a mutually agreed upon time. (Ethical merchants never charge your card until they deliver the goods, so the contract can be for some time in the future just like a stock option.) You are not taxed because you signed it and neither is the person who has agreed to accept your money. If you were, you could be taxed on a stock option that you never exercised. Capital gains has nothing really to do with stock options. It has to do with buying and then selling certain classes of things that appreciate in value.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
I think he's just mixing up "stock" and "stock options", either of which can be given as compensation... One is an actual transaction, the other is just a contract, as you said.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
I think he's just mixing up "stock" and "stock options", either of which can be given as compensation... One is an actual transaction, the other is just a contract, as you said.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
I think he's just mixing up "stock" and "stock options", either of which can be given as compensation... One is an actual transaction, the other is just a contract, as you said.
You're almost assuredly right, but I suspect that he further is confused about receiving stock as compensation, since the law requires that tax be withheld from your paycheck at the time you receive the stock at the same rate that you would if you received the stock's value in cash. In other words, the perceived inequity doesn't exist, never existed, and is unlikely to ever exist in the future.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
-
fat_boy wrote:
Tax evasion
I think you mean tax avoidance which isn't illegal the way tax evasion is. It may be true in the UK, but this has been shown to be a myth in the U.S. The percentage of income paid in taxes by the very rich and the rich is higher than that of the middle class.
fat_boy wrote:
unequal burden on the poor
I remember reading that, like the US, almost 50% of the people living in England pay no income tax at all. The burden, I would guess, if there is one, would fall in the middle class. The problem with your VAT is it is a snowball. The same product gets taxed over and over again - leading to Britain having gas prices that are twice what America has.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
Oakman wrote:
The problem with your VAT is it is a snowball. The same product gets taxed over and over again
Not quite. The tax paid by the consumer is (theoretically) the same whether a Sales Tax or VAT is in imposed. Sales Tax 10%: * The manufacturer pays $1.00 for raw materials and adds a gross margin of $0.20. * The retailer pays $1.20 for the product and adds a gross margin of $0.30. * The consumer pays $1.65 for the product ($1.50 + $0.15 tax) * The retailer pays the government $0.15. VAT 10%: * The manufacturer pays $1.10 for the raw materials ($1.00 + $0.10 tax). * The seller of the raw materials pays the government $0.10. * The retailer pays $1.32 for the product ($1.20 + $0.12 tax). * The manufacturer pays the government $0.02 ($0.12 tax collected - $0.10 tax paid). * The consumer pays $1.65 for the product ($1.50 + $0.15 tax). * The retailer pays the government $0.03 ($0.15 tax collected - $0.12 tax paid). * The manufacturer's gross margin remains $0.20 ($1.32 sale - $1.10 cost - $0.02 tax). * The retailer's gross margin remains $0.30 ($1.65 sale - $1.32 cost - $0.03 tax). As you see, VAT is not subjected to VAT at each stage. Full discussion at Wikipedia.[^] The high cost of fuel in the UK is due to Fuel Duty (about half the price at the pump, I understand). However, VAT is then charged on (Fuel + Duty), so in this case, a double whammy indeed.
2011 - Our best hope is that things will be frightening and dangerous rather than desperate and horrific. Jesse's Café Américain
-
Oakman wrote:
The problem with your VAT is it is a snowball. The same product gets taxed over and over again
Not quite. The tax paid by the consumer is (theoretically) the same whether a Sales Tax or VAT is in imposed. Sales Tax 10%: * The manufacturer pays $1.00 for raw materials and adds a gross margin of $0.20. * The retailer pays $1.20 for the product and adds a gross margin of $0.30. * The consumer pays $1.65 for the product ($1.50 + $0.15 tax) * The retailer pays the government $0.15. VAT 10%: * The manufacturer pays $1.10 for the raw materials ($1.00 + $0.10 tax). * The seller of the raw materials pays the government $0.10. * The retailer pays $1.32 for the product ($1.20 + $0.12 tax). * The manufacturer pays the government $0.02 ($0.12 tax collected - $0.10 tax paid). * The consumer pays $1.65 for the product ($1.50 + $0.15 tax). * The retailer pays the government $0.03 ($0.15 tax collected - $0.12 tax paid). * The manufacturer's gross margin remains $0.20 ($1.32 sale - $1.10 cost - $0.02 tax). * The retailer's gross margin remains $0.30 ($1.65 sale - $1.32 cost - $0.03 tax). As you see, VAT is not subjected to VAT at each stage. Full discussion at Wikipedia.[^] The high cost of fuel in the UK is due to Fuel Duty (about half the price at the pump, I understand). However, VAT is then charged on (Fuel + Duty), so in this case, a double whammy indeed.
2011 - Our best hope is that things will be frightening and dangerous rather than desperate and horrific. Jesse's Café Américain
OK, that's the theory - which means that the only reason to do it that way is to hide the fact that the taxation is much greater than it seems?
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
-
Getting stock as compensation is income. US law just doesn't see it that way. Selling it or cashing it in just turns it into money which can be taxed. I don't agree with stock as compensation because it is a tax evasion technique employed by company executives.
ahmed zahmed wrote:
Your statement belies your ignorance of how stock options work.
I'm not ignorant. I just don't care how it turns into money. It's compensation that is income. I already know about capital gains tax. The starting value was never taxed and taking a difference isn't enough. It's a pittance in comparison to actually taxing the starting price. They got income at the beginning and income again when it went up when the person sells it. I'd call it a sales tax of sorts.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
I don't agree that it's income, it's just a promise to let you buy at some future date the stock at a given price, nothing actually changes hands until you buy it. And because you have to buy it, at the stated strike price, why should it be taxed? If you tax it when the stock option is awarded, the the receiver should then get a tax credit when he buys the stock option. Since that would be the case, then why go through the effort. Oftentimes the stock options end up being worthless (the actual stock price goes below the strike price). If you tax it at the strike price when the option is awarded, then you should get a tax credit once the price moves below the strike price.
"If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams "Let me get this straight. You know her. She knows you. But she wants to eat him. And everybody's okay with this?"
-
ahmed zahmed wrote:
Your statement belies your ignorance of how stock options work.
And yours demonstrates your lack of understanding of the English language. Unless you meant that his statement shows that he is not ignorant of how stock options work.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H.L. Mencken
lol. you're right. it may have been better to have said, "belies your true understanding"
"If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams "Let me get this straight. You know her. She knows you. But she wants to eat him. And everybody's okay with this?"