Comment: Re:Prizes Instead of Pay (Score 1) 75
Not answering that particular question, but if the prize re-license was to BY-SA and not BY it would not be as bad. (If it is bad at all.)
Comment: Withdrawing Support Not The Same As Joining Opposi (Score 1) 204
As I said elsewhere...
Withdrawing Support Not he Same As Joining Opposition
Comment: Re:Tax planning and rich people (Score 1) 2115
Go and work for someone, and they owe you money, regardless of whether they made any themselves.
Sure, unless they go bust and can't pay you.
BTDT.
drew
Comment: Re:Tax planning and rich people (Score 1) 2115
Well, there are other ways to get multiple houses. I did not know your tax code made that distinction. So no tax at all on your main house? Capital gains tax on others?
I do think simplicity would help the situation.
Note: I live in a different country where we do not have any income tax at all. That does not mean we do not have similar tax issues and questions though.
Comment: Re:Tax planning and rich people (Score 1) 2115
If they could actually do this that would be one thing. Somehow I think it will end up hitting the folks without the time, skills, or contacts to find the loopholes.
Comment: Re:Tax planning and rich people (Score 1) 2115
Perhaps, but I am not so sure. Other things have gone up like crazy too. Cars for instance.
Comment: Re:Tax planning and rich people (Score 1) 2115
Indeed, but raising the regular income rate that they pay is not going to get the job done.
Comment: Re:Tax planning and rich people (Score 1) 2115
I get how he does it. What I don't get is how raising the regular income rate and not the capital gains rate will cause someone making the majority of their income as capital gains pay more.
This is such an absurd concept.
In some ways perhaps, but if you bought a $10,000 house in 1960 and basically only maintained it rather than improved it and you sell it today for $300,000 you have not made $290,000 in income/profit in my mind.
Sure, if you could buy the 1960's $10,000 house on the lot next to yours for $10,000 on the day you just sold your house for $300,000 ok, but if that house next door is going to cost you $300,000 then you haven't made a thing. You put one house's worth of money into the house when you bought it in 1960 and you get one house's worth of money out of it when you sell it today.
To treat that as regular income would be a rip off of major proportions.\\all the best,
drew
Comment: Re:Ignorance is a viewpoint and all that (Score 1) 2115
It sometimes still amazes me when I meet liberals who don't understand that many people who "make $1M" actually don't keep most of it even before taxes because they run sole proprietorships or partnerships
If they don't keep it (i.e., plow it back into their business - and more power to them!), then they shouldn't be taking it out as income, but should instead structure their business accounting differently.
I think his point is that the "gross revenue" of their business is treated as their personal income. Is this really the case and if it is, why do they not incorporate to avoid this "trap"?
all the best,
drew
Comment: Re:Ignorance is a viewpoint and all that (Score 1) 2115
It sometimes still amazes me when I meet liberals who don't understand that many people who "make $1M" actually don't keep most of it even before taxes because they run sole proprietorships or partnerships.
I see this explanation made often.
Why do they structure their business like this instead of incorporating? Why is this point made without laying out the facts/evidence to back up the point. I have paying some attention for a good while now and have not seen this.
all the best,
drew