How does $280 mil turn into $94 mil???
That's the Powerball lottery amount at the moment. Just heard on the news that the after-taxes amount is $90-something (don't remember, and no I don't smoke pot). WTF is with that?! Yeah, I know $90 mil is still a lot of money, but c'mon, why does the govt have to shove its nose into everything good. Why can't extreme good fortune remain just that instead of turning into an utter anal raping? I could understand 280 turning into 140, but beyond that is getting a bit ludicrous, IMO. Hell, I think you should get virtually a free ride when you come across such tremendous good luck- maybe 90%?
What's the govt got to do with it? The pot was derived from after-tax dollars, afterall. [/rant]
What's the govt got to do with it? The pot was derived from after-tax dollars, afterall. [/rant]
Comments
<strong>That's the Powerball lottery amount at the moment. Just heard on the news that the after-taxes amount is $90-something (don't remember, and no I don't smoke pot). WTF is with that?! Yeah, I know $90 mil is still a lot of money, but c'mon, why does the govt have to shove its nose into everything good. Why can't extreme good fortune remain just that instead of turning into an utter anal raping? I could understand 280 turning into 140, but beyond that is getting a bit ludicrous, IMO. Hell, I think you should get virtually a free ride when you come across such tremendous good luck- maybe 90%?
What's the govt got to do with it? The pot was derived from after-tax dollars, afterall. [/rant]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well there are two parts here. One is of course all the taxes. The higher the amount made or won, the higher the tax rate on it. The rate at that amount is at least 31% from what I recall.
Additionally they decided to take it as a lump sum instead of being paid out over a number of years.
If they agreed to something like 14 million a year for like 20 years, that 14 million in the 20th year isn't worth as much as the 14 million received this year. Inflation will make that money worth less overtime.
Now if you think this is bad consider this...
They will get taxed (at least 31%) when they receive it.
If they invest it and get a return they have to pay capital gains on it. (20%+ from what I last recall, and that was a cut)
If they buy a house with it, they will have to pay property taxes. (1-5% of home value a year depending upon where you live)
If they simply sat there and died with it they would have to pay an estate tax. (up to 50%)
Sucks doesn't it? Every wonder why so many young people are Democrats when they are in college/high school? It is because they have nothing in terms of income, homes, etc. When they do start to get some of these things... they magically become conservative. (Not always but Hippies to Yuppies is a pretty decent trend most can spot and understand)
It ain't pretty...
Nick
It's just absurd how much you earn goes away to somebody before you actually spend it on something, and sometimes even then it is continued to be taxed over time. It's like we are all actually working for the fed and the state rather than making a living to support ourself.
For example, using 5.6% interest for 20 years, a yearly payment of just under $8,000,000 has a future value of $280,000,000. That's the number that the Lotto give you-- the future value (FV) of money.
Or, to say it in another way, using the same time and interest rates, a future value of $280M has a present value (PV) of $94,000,000.
FV = PV{(1 + r/n))^(nt)}, where
r = rate (decimal)
n = compounding periods per year
t = time in years
This is derived, of course, from:
E = mc²
The quiz on this topic on Friday will be closed book.
edit: you forget one little '#' hash/pound/sharp sign and your formula goes to pot, I tell ya.
[ 12-26-2002: Message edited by: GardenOfEarthlyDelights ]</p>
<strong>Sucks doesn't it? Every wonder why so many young people are Democrats when they are in college/high school? It is because they have nothing in terms of income, homes, etc. When they do start to get some of these things... they magically become conservative. (Not always but Hippies to Yuppies is a pretty decent trend most can spot and understand)
It ain't pretty...
Nick</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thank you, thank you, thank you. The best thing written in AI in a long, long time.
With no offense/slam meant at anyone, but it's often VERY hard to debate (or take too seriously) the arguments and views of a teen or very young twenty-something (right OR left, but particularly left...) when it comes to politics, economics, cultural/social issues, etc.
When I was 19 and 20, I was COMPLETELY opposite from what I am now. I was in college, hung around the art students/hacky-sack playing crowd, I voted for Clinton in 1992 because that was "the thing to do", etc.
You're surrounded by nothing but like-minded people and tweedy, left-leaning teachers and professors spouting stuff (and inserting their little commentary during class on events of the day). Nobody wants to appear "against the grain", or, worse, "conservative" or right-of-center.
I certainly know I didn't!
When you're in high school and college, life is a bit of a fairy tale. What you read in books and what you hear from those in leadership positions is taken as gospel.
I have much more respect (actually, respect is too strong a word because I respect most everyone here, even though I think they're often wrongheaded and simply spouting what's been fed to them because they don't have enough age/life experience to know/see otherwise) for an older person who comes by his views and can argue/defend them with some honesty and credibility.
I don't know many like that. Alan Colmes surely doesn't fall into that camp. He's a goofball who ALWAYS picks the wrong side of any given issue.
I just find it very tough, of late, to be lectured or hassled by people who've never quite made it on their own, in the real world and are still firmly rooted in the halls of academia and have yet to truly go out and experience the world without the "college filter" on.
I simply know too many people (myself included) who have, once they left school and entered the real world of 40-60 hour work weeks, property ownership, taxes, dealing with idiotic bureaucracy and red-tape on EVERYTHING, trying to raise a family and wondering "where did this damn paycheck go to already?", etc. who just, after 5 or 10 years, gain a vastly different view of life, the government, the tax system, morality, pop culture and its influence, crime, social issues, etc.
When you're in college, every criminal is a "misunderstood" guy (who is probably a really decent guy, deep down, if only...), doing what he does only because The Man has put him into this position. Some even attach an air of nobility to the thug element, like they're doing something cool and dashing.
Then you grow up and snap out of it and realize that people taking your shit and assaulting your loved ones are indeed low-life trash and you have a hard time romanticizing anything about them.
That's why you see so many college kids supporting some of the kookier cases and causes of the time. Many of them do it simply because that's what you do. You parrot those around you and you want to fit in.
Sometimes that's what I want to say to those who "get in my face" about "life", and they're barely old enough to have a driver's license. I just simply want to say "Great, I'm glad you feel that way. What book, exactly, did you read THAT in, Sparky? Tell you what, come see me when you're about 28-30 and let's talk then...".
I'd have a MUCH easier time buying/respecting their views (whichever way they happen to go) when they have a few life experiences and mileage on them.
Any 17-year-old can spout off some stat she read about on NOW's website and not stop once to consider its validity or honesty. Or to consider that there might be certain politics and agendas at play here.
And I only make the above statements because it doesn indeed seem to go that way. Colleges and high schools simply aren't overrun with right-leaning students/faculty. It doesn't go the other way. I don't really know anyone who was a hard-right-leaning, platitude-spouting college student who got out, entered the real world and 10 years later traded in their wingtips and briefcase for Birkenstocks, a bong and a subscription to Mother Jones.
But the other way around? Ohmigosh...too many to count.
Put the flame suit on, I'm sure there are a few young punks typing feverishly right now.... heh heh.
<strong>Well said pscates.
Put the flame suit on, I'm sure there are a few young punks typing feverishly right now.... heh heh.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's okay, they will change their voter registration when they realize they are trying to repay their student loans with AFTER tax dollars.
What do you mean that after you took my taxes, 401k contribution, Social Security contribution and house payment that I've got just enough to eat Taco Bell for lunch?
Where is that voter registration card again???
Hahahaha <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Nick
That's just ridiculous.
Ridiculous.
And if Pscates wants to write another long-winded reply venting his anger, he certainly has an audience, but that doesn't mean a word he says is right. Ignorant I would say. But it's the truth. Trumpt, Pscates, Murbot, Randycat all slander what it means to be a Democrat.
But it looks increasingly like "Money" is the highlight of what it means to be a Republican. I don't know. I'm looking around my $400,000 house, two Volvo's, Apple Titanium PowerBook computer, expensive to maintain Asian girlfriend, and a ****ing Killington Ski trip on Saturday and I think my left-leaning Democratic family gets along just fine. All 140+ years of experience they have.
The new AppleOutsider. Quality posts here.
That looks just about right actually. $140 million -31% ~ $94 million.
<strong>
If they simply sat there and died with it they would have to pay an estate tax. (up to 50%)</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you died and passed money on to someone else then yes, those dollars should be taxed. Your heir shouldn't get income without taxation.
<strong>No it's not. That was one of the few things I've ever read here that actually made me glow red with anger. If anything, it proves that Pscates has no handle on what it means to be a Democrat, and chaulks what he thinks it means up to inexperience, as if the the people who "know" should really be Republicans.
That's just ridiculous.
Ridiculous.
And if Pscates wants to write another long-winded reply venting his anger, he certainly has an audience, but that doesn't mean a word he says is right. Ignorant I would say. But it's the truth. Trumpt, Pscates, Murbot, Randycat all slander what it means to be a Democrat.
But it looks increasingly like "Money" is the highlight of what it means to be a Republican. I don't know. I'm looking around my $400,000 house, two Volvo's, Apple Titanium PowerBook computer, expensive to maintain Asian girlfriend, and a ****ing Killington Ski trip on Saturday and I think my left-leaning Democratic family gets along just fine. All 140+ years of experience they have.
The new AppleOutsider. Quality posts here.
Shawn,
I did not say, nor did Pscates that money was the end all be all, nor the only defining attribute of becoming Republican. I don't even know if he is Republican. I just mentioned that you tend to vote more conservatively the more you have. I mean that is about as obvious as saying the sky is blue.
I will propose a little challenge for you though Shawn. Let's simply move you a few years down the road in our imaginations if you want. Let's graduate you from law school, marry you to that expensive to maintain Asian girlfriend (remember your characterization, not mine) take what you think you will make and buy and see what you have left over.
In the end you simply tell us if it enough and what sort of tax increases you would support.
I mean I am leaving control of most of this up to you and I'm not trying to be mean. It's just that life can be pretty expensive in some ways that students don't really think about. Perhaps you will think about them a bit and see more of what Pscates and I were referring to. It doesn't mean you will change your party registration.
Might move you from far left to DLC though...
BTW does that house belong to you or your parents? Do you own to Volvo's or do they?
Genuine questions, no smilies, I'm not trying to antagonize or belittle you.
Nick
<strong>
If you died and passed money on to someone else then yes, those dollars should be taxed. Your heir shouldn't get income without taxation.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bunge,
You did the math yourself, it was already taxed at 31% to begin with. Is it really income the second time around? It is an estate being left to someone. They don't earn it and didn't work a job to it.
Shawn,
The reason it is seen as passive income by Republicans is because you didn't do anything to earn it. Nothing has really happened except for title has changed on many items.
If your parents passed on and left you their house. Did you "earn" $400,000 that year? Should you pay up to $200,000 to keep the house they and likely you were already living in?
If it were an active act, then you would have done something to earn it. Be it trading a stock, selling something, or actually working for it at a job.
Unless you actively assisted someone in dying, I really don't see how it is active income.
Nick
Here's a little tidbit.
Just wait until you're older when you need prescription drugs. It's amazing how many seniors vote democratic when their priorites change.
<strong>
Bunge,
You did the math yourself, it was already taxed at 31% to begin with. Is it really income the second time around? It is an estate being left to someone. They don't earn it and didn't work a job to it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
For someone that receives it, yes. I have to pay income tax for a "bonus" I sometimes receive at work. It has nothing to do with my income from employment. I have to pay taxes if I receive a car from someone, even if it's free. I believe up to $11,000 is not sheltered from taxes when given as a gift. So, if you're given $400,000, a portion of it is sheltered, but not all. It's income for the person that receives it.
<strong>Every wonder why so many young people are Democrats when they are in college/high school? It is because they have nothing in terms of income, homes, etc. When they do start to get some of these things... they magically become conservative.</strong><hr></blockquote>But what about people who start out conservative? Maybe their parents were, or their friends, etc. I suppose if you start out conservative already, you just get even more conservative when you get older.
I was looking at <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.epolls.html"; target="_blank">exit polls for the 2000 election recently</a>. It's a good measure because the vote was so evenly split.
Age:
18-29: 48% Gore 46% Bush
30-44: 48% Gore, 49% Bush
45-59: 48% Gore, 49% Bush
60 up: 51% Gore, 47% Bush
Younger and older people vote Gore, but it's not a huge difference either way. I suppose you could argue that when you're young you don't pay taxes, and when you're old you benefit the most from those taxes.
This is an interesting one too.
Education:
No HS: 59% Gore, 39% Bush
HS: 48% Gore, 49% Bush
College: 45% Gore, 51% Bush
Graduate school: 52% Gore, 44% Bush
So if you're either really smart or really dumb, you vote Gore.
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
Class:
Upper class: 56% Gore, 39% Bush
Upper-middle: 43% Gore, 54% Bush
Middle: 48% Gore, 49% Bush
Working: 51% Gore, 46% Bush
Similar here: upper class (whatever that is) and working class (whatever that is) vote Gore, middle and upper-middle vote Bush.
Overall, it's an interesting read. The real difference is that Bush absolutely crushes Gore among White Males (60 to 39%), Protestant in particular. Most of the rest of the major demographics are either tied or favor Gore: minorities, other religions, women.
This info is according to <a href="http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/11/gates-w.html"; target="_blank">this article</a> by none other than William Gates, Sr. He also points out why it is needed and why your argument is wrong, trumpeteer.
[ 12-26-2002: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
Although I wish it were true, age doesn't exclusively equal income.
Here is what I said...It is because they have nothing in terms of income, homes, etc. When they do start to get some of these things... they magically become conservative.
Vote by Income All Gore Bush
Under $15,000 7% 57% 37%
$15-30,000 16% 54% 41%
$30-50,000 24% 49% 48%
$50-75,000 25% 46% 51%
$75-100,000 13% 45% 52%
Over $100,000 15% 43% 54%
Now you quote the one about classes, but then CNN obviously doesn't quote what it takes to be in those classes.
However again you guys need to really calm down and maybe have a glass of wine or something. (Except Shawn, he is 19 and can have Kool-Aid)
Randycat, Pscates and I have all these nice semi-informational semi-joking posts where a question was asked and then answered.(lots of smilies) It was light hearted. You guys come bursting in here trying to make it Fireside Chat or something like that...
Is it the first already? Relax... stare into the light... you are becoming...sleepy...
<img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Nick