USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0
- Thread starter dxmnkd316
- Start date
- Status
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0
Yes, but only by state; regions aren't taken into account. In NYC, $100 doesn't get you much, while if you're in Central/Western NY, you'll get a real bang for your buck. And in the real upstate (Adirondack Park and the North Country), it's even better.
Yes, but only by state; regions aren't taken into account. In NYC, $100 doesn't get you much, while if you're in Central/Western NY, you'll get a real bang for your buck. And in the real upstate (Adirondack Park and the North Country), it's even better.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0
Hence why I mentioned kicking the can. If you wanted to solve this, wouldn't it be a better idea to instead attack the cost of things, and what's going into that?
Hence why I mentioned kicking the can. If you wanted to solve this, wouldn't it be a better idea to instead attack the cost of things, and what's going into that?
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0
Looks like we should all move to Mississippi then to get the most bang for our buck!
Looks like we should all move to Mississippi then to get the most bang for our buck!
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0
Happen to notice how the blue states and red states actually work out here?
Looks like we should all move to Mississippi then to get the most bang for our buck!
Happen to notice how the blue states and red states actually work out here?
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0
All the more reason why federal cookie-cutter policies have no business in a country that has diversity in many different facets through its use of states and their relative autonomy.
All the more reason why federal cookie-cutter policies have no business in a country that has diversity in many different facets through its use of states and their relative autonomy.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0
I prefer 1861 remedies.
I prefer 1861 remedies.
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0
More of a personal finance question, but there are some smart minds on here:
I hate asking financial advice online, but does it ever (not) make sense to maximize your contribution to the employee stock purchase program with a 15% discount?
The basic risk is that your company's stock price tanks, right? So let's assume that every month I look at my portfolio and make sure that my company's stock never exceeds something like 10-15% of my total investment portfolio. If it does, I sell off the excess. That way I'm growing the fund, I'm getting partial dividend benefits, I'm realizing the full long-term capital gains benefit, and I'm increasing my income. What's the downside?
More of a personal finance question, but there are some smart minds on here:
I hate asking financial advice online, but does it ever (not) make sense to maximize your contribution to the employee stock purchase program with a 15% discount?
The basic risk is that your company's stock price tanks, right? So let's assume that every month I look at my portfolio and make sure that my company's stock never exceeds something like 10-15% of my total investment portfolio. If it does, I sell off the excess. That way I'm growing the fund, I'm getting partial dividend benefits, I'm realizing the full long-term capital gains benefit, and I'm increasing my income. What's the downside?
unofan
Well-known member
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0
So if I'm understanding you right, you get to buy shares of your company stock at a 15% discount? Essentially you could turn around and sell it on the open market and make a 15% profit?
Then yes, the only downside would be that the stock declines in price during any vesting period or however much time you have to hold it before you could sell it off.
If it's something where the company requires you to keep it for numerous years, then it's riskier. If you could sell it the day you buy it, there's almost no risk in the transaction.
Edit: As to the rest of your post re: keeping 10-15% of your portfolio in company stock and holding it and the like, that's beyond the scope of my response. I'm merely talking about the initial transaction of buying the company stock at discount.
So if I'm understanding you right, you get to buy shares of your company stock at a 15% discount? Essentially you could turn around and sell it on the open market and make a 15% profit?
Then yes, the only downside would be that the stock declines in price during any vesting period or however much time you have to hold it before you could sell it off.
If it's something where the company requires you to keep it for numerous years, then it's riskier. If you could sell it the day you buy it, there's almost no risk in the transaction.
Edit: As to the rest of your post re: keeping 10-15% of your portfolio in company stock and holding it and the like, that's beyond the scope of my response. I'm merely talking about the initial transaction of buying the company stock at discount.
Last edited:
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0
Yeah, that's kind of what I'm seeing now. As I understand it, it's a typical 423 employee stock program. You can buy it at a discount and if you hold it for 0-12 months, you treat all of the gains as regular income. If you hold it for 12-24 months, you treat a portion of it as long-term capital gains and the rest as regular income. If you hold it for 24+ months, you treat the discount as regular income and you adjust the basis upwards this amount so you're taxed on the profits from this adjusted basis.
(Agreed on the 10-15%, I have no idea what's too much. I figure the 10-15% amount is around the max you'd want of any individual stock in your portfolio, but that's really a risk/reward decision everyone needs to make on their own.)
Yeah, that's kind of what I'm seeing now. As I understand it, it's a typical 423 employee stock program. You can buy it at a discount and if you hold it for 0-12 months, you treat all of the gains as regular income. If you hold it for 12-24 months, you treat a portion of it as long-term capital gains and the rest as regular income. If you hold it for 24+ months, you treat the discount as regular income and you adjust the basis upwards this amount so you're taxed on the profits from this adjusted basis.
(Agreed on the 10-15%, I have no idea what's too much. I figure the 10-15% amount is around the max you'd want of any individual stock in your portfolio, but that's really a risk/reward decision everyone needs to make on their own.)
Almington
Blood Boiling with Rage and Hate
To me the risk is that the stock tanks AND you lose your job and become a desperate seller of the stock when the market may have overreacted.
I'd say that 10 to 15% is the most that I would want in any one stock. Knowing who you work for, I would be comfortable in the higher end knowing that they are a stable DJIA stock.
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0
It seemed to me that the article primarily had two main points:
-- that we re-structure our existing social safety net away from all specific programs and essentially turn them into what is called in the jargon a "block grant." No more SNAP / Section 8 / CHIPs / unemployment insurance / (perhaps even Medicaid?) and take all that money and "give" it to people directly so that they could then allocate it to spend however they saw fit.
(it seems to me that the left would never go for it since they don't trust people to be competent enough to make their own decisions, which is why we have all these separate programs to begin with; the right would like it because it would reduce government administrative costs tremendously).
-- that we remove the high marginal cost of moving off of a social safety net regime into a self-supporting regime. Everyone gets a basic income, and you can then supplement that however you want with incremental additional economic activity.
-- while not clearly stated in the article, I inferred that people with "high enough" incomes would basically just use whatever they received as their basic income to pay income taxes on their higher earned incomes. No doubt if it ever were implemented, you could just request a direct offset to begin with.
When I read that article, I liked the concept quite a bit. It addresses several structural problems all at the same time, and has enough in it to make both the left and the right grudgingly acknowledge the benefits (although both would do it in a backhanded, "yes, but..." manner).
An unintended consequence likely would be an even larger "off the books" economy than we already have. Another consequence would be a huge (one hopes temporary) spike in unemployment, as tens of thousands of government employees would no longer have special targeted programs to administer. in the long run, this consequence would have a hugely salutary effect, but the transition might be uncomfortable.
Depending on the details of how it is structured, and the level of the basic income, I could see how it would be an all-around winner, since it could both reduce taxes and also give people more value (the savings on administrative personnel costs would finance these improvements).
I'd like to see Medicaid replaced with vouchers for private insurance without any of the PPACA restrictions. The government never faces a financial incentive to innovate since they have no effective way to measure competence in administration. See: ongoing news stories about fraudulent billing.
It seemed to me that the article primarily had two main points:
-- that we re-structure our existing social safety net away from all specific programs and essentially turn them into what is called in the jargon a "block grant." No more SNAP / Section 8 / CHIPs / unemployment insurance / (perhaps even Medicaid?) and take all that money and "give" it to people directly so that they could then allocate it to spend however they saw fit.
(it seems to me that the left would never go for it since they don't trust people to be competent enough to make their own decisions, which is why we have all these separate programs to begin with; the right would like it because it would reduce government administrative costs tremendously).
-- that we remove the high marginal cost of moving off of a social safety net regime into a self-supporting regime. Everyone gets a basic income, and you can then supplement that however you want with incremental additional economic activity.
-- while not clearly stated in the article, I inferred that people with "high enough" incomes would basically just use whatever they received as their basic income to pay income taxes on their higher earned incomes. No doubt if it ever were implemented, you could just request a direct offset to begin with.
When I read that article, I liked the concept quite a bit. It addresses several structural problems all at the same time, and has enough in it to make both the left and the right grudgingly acknowledge the benefits (although both would do it in a backhanded, "yes, but..." manner).
An unintended consequence likely would be an even larger "off the books" economy than we already have. Another consequence would be a huge (one hopes temporary) spike in unemployment, as tens of thousands of government employees would no longer have special targeted programs to administer. in the long run, this consequence would have a hugely salutary effect, but the transition might be uncomfortable.
Depending on the details of how it is structured, and the level of the basic income, I could see how it would be an all-around winner, since it could both reduce taxes and also give people more value (the savings on administrative personnel costs would finance these improvements).
I'd like to see Medicaid replaced with vouchers for private insurance without any of the PPACA restrictions. The government never faces a financial incentive to innovate since they have no effective way to measure competence in administration. See: ongoing news stories about fraudulent billing.
Last edited:
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0
It is not quite the same as giving an allowance to people. It is more like giving an allowance to your adult children and then charging them rent to live in your house, and charging them for the food they eat. It replaces giving people goods and services under a wide variety of programs and giving them an equivalent dollar value and then having them go out into the market to buy them.
They don't get any more money than they get now in terms of value, they merely have the freedom to allocate it differently. They could spend less on housing than they get under Section 8 and spend more on food than they get from SNAP, for example.
It is not quite the same as giving an allowance to people. It is more like giving an allowance to your adult children and then charging them rent to live in your house, and charging them for the food they eat. It replaces giving people goods and services under a wide variety of programs and giving them an equivalent dollar value and then having them go out into the market to buy them.
They don't get any more money than they get now in terms of value, they merely have the freedom to allocate it differently. They could spend less on housing than they get under Section 8 and spend more on food than they get from SNAP, for example.
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0
That's not how the proposal works. You take away SNAP / unemployment benefits / etc. and replace them directly with dollars. Those other programs all go away. People are not getting anything more than they had before, they are merely getting it in a different form.
That's not how the proposal works. You take away SNAP / unemployment benefits / etc. and replace them directly with dollars. Those other programs all go away. People are not getting anything more than they had before, they are merely getting it in a different form.
You HOPE they go away. Goverment programs need a wooden stake thru the heart to kill them. Even then, it's still not a sure thing.
St. Clown
Liberal Rebel Scum, apparently
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0
What Joe said.
What Joe said.
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0
yes, the difference between theory and practice.
The challenge is to preserve the opportunity for upward mobility. Right now, the marginal tax rate to go from no earned income to a starting earned income is something like 50%, between direct taxes now assessed combined with the loss of benefits.
BTW, that's what is not "the matter with Kansas." People do know what is in their best interest. People like Thomas Frank don't realize that everyone has dreams and ambitions and hopes for a better future. We don't only vote based on our current situation, we also vote based on our aspirations for the future. Apparently he had such a subconscious disdain for people unlike him, he couldn't even picture how someone who is poor now might want a better life as a result of their own efforts.
My strongest criticism of our current welfare state is how it marginalizes poor people and ignores their basic humanity: I criticize the most how bad it is for the recipients' well-being. Giving a person food is a temporary stop-gap, not an open-ended way of life, from the recipients point of view.
Anyone with children (or nieces/nephews) has heard the words, "Mommy/Daddy, I want to do it myself." Why would we take that away from someone?
yes, the difference between theory and practice.
The challenge is to preserve the opportunity for upward mobility. Right now, the marginal tax rate to go from no earned income to a starting earned income is something like 50%, between direct taxes now assessed combined with the loss of benefits.
BTW, that's what is not "the matter with Kansas." People do know what is in their best interest. People like Thomas Frank don't realize that everyone has dreams and ambitions and hopes for a better future. We don't only vote based on our current situation, we also vote based on our aspirations for the future. Apparently he had such a subconscious disdain for people unlike him, he couldn't even picture how someone who is poor now might want a better life as a result of their own efforts.
My strongest criticism of our current welfare state is how it marginalizes poor people and ignores their basic humanity: I criticize the most how bad it is for the recipients' well-being. Giving a person food is a temporary stop-gap, not an open-ended way of life, from the recipients point of view.
Anyone with children (or nieces/nephews) has heard the words, "Mommy/Daddy, I want to do it myself." Why would we take that away from someone?
Last edited:
unofan
Well-known member
Not surprised, every time I went in one I left thinking I should've either gone to another store or bought on line. I'm not sure who their target market was, because it clearly wasn't anyone who was deeply interested in a given sport.
- Status