11-13-2012 09:56 AM
Tomorrow, I'm going in for my pre-tax review with the CPA. I'll have a lot of questions,and will be considering what my tax implications are if the sequestration situation is not ameliorated. I'll be wanting to balance my taxes and fill up my tax bracket, but with an eye on higher taxes in '13. If the possibilty seems great, it may make sense to sell a little more this year rather than be taxed at a higher rate on it next year.
There will be tremendous pressure for both sides to take something away from the "fiscal cliff" (where do they get these assinine names?) but what that means to us as farmers is pretty hard to tell.
Might be some depreciation driven buying this year, might be some tax avoidance income taken. Might not be any effect at all. We'll see.
11-13-2012 11:06 AM
3% higher on amounts over $250K. If you make $350K you you will pay $3000 more than you do at todays rate. Although there is a possibility that the Bush tax rates will expire for everybody if they cannot come to terms.
11-13-2012 11:21 AM
The name just shows that it is getting harder and harder to get your story read or on the evening news.
Can a suporting visual movie clip be far behind------ like a scene from Thelma & Louise to open the evening news.
It is definitly poor taste and overly dramatic like a teenager who just lost the keys for a week.
11-13-2012 11:45 AM
I wonder, if there are speculators taking capital gains from the markets, while they can still make a profit, just to be safe? When the market started going down, maybe they cashed in, what profit they could, rather than wonder if it would bounce back, before the end of the year.
As for taxes, I'll bet anyone who wants me to, that by the end of 2014, the tax increases will extend beyond those who are making $250K a year.
If I win, you have to post your picture, wearing a Cornhusker shirt. If I lose, I will post a picture, wearing a Husker shirt (just kidding, I'll wear the shirt of the team of your choice).
11-13-2012 03:23 PM
Kraft, now that $3000 would not be such big a deal that I would not change marketing plans over it. Now if the markets crash and I still get hit with the extra tax, that could be ugly.
I will know that the dems are really serious about taxing the rich, when the income limits are gone on SS/med taxes.
Can't understand why someone making 30,000 has to pay 100% SS/med on their income, but someone making 500,000 a year only pays 22%.
Simplest tax to raise, not near the loopholes...never hear it mentioned.
11-13-2012 04:57 PM
In fact, the Medicare tax, has been lowered, just recently, by 2%.
Maybe, the most prudend thing, would be to lower the tax rates on SS and Medicare, but have it apply to higher income. If you look at it, above a certain point, a tax rate cut takes place, because of the limit on SS and Med taxes.
11-14-2012 06:20 AM
jec, you know the answer to your query, right? It's all about what is "fair". The benefits to the person earning $500,000 are capped so that, by your scenario, that person's contribution would be "more fair", but the retirement benefits would not reflect that wealthy individual's contribution. I'm gonna turn into a teaparty conservative, yet.
11-14-2012 10:10 AM
Idelivered, that is probably where you and I differ. I think it is a shell game. The taxes collected from SS/med do not have their own pot, but are thrown into the big pot(hole). They might label taxes different names, but it is cosmetic. SS/med funds were used to cosign a note that is big trouble. I have no illusion that the SS/med taxes I pay are for my benefit alone.
I have always wondered if politicians that waste billions in tax dollars, make millions for their own pockets, give to the 'poor' to ease their conscience(if they have one).
11-14-2012 10:24 AM
And that is why those that favor a flat tax have no credibility. If they really favored flat tax rates they would advocate changing that tax policy first. You don't see any pols advocating that.
11-14-2012 10:41 AM
that there is no money in the trust fund and that SS and Fica taxes have no particular designation toward social needs. Thus it is merely a special tax for workers to fund a greater share of the operating budget of this country.
Do you suppose other bondholders of US securities expect to get their money back plus interest? Why would the SS trust fund be any different? I never consider my deposits in the local bank to be stolen simply because the bank loan them out. Why would anybody think that? Do you think your premiums to your life insurance have been stolen simply because they are invested?
There is no reason to suspect that the SS funds will not be returned as needed. Even if the government has to refinance with the sale of other bonds or (gasp) raise taxes.
Those thoughts are the product of those that oppose social security and other social programs. They are trying to sell the idea that social programs are to blame for the huge debt level. They are not!