As a US citizen, you can reduce your US income tax by the amount of income taxes you pay abroad (or some portion thereof). Otherwise the combined tax rate could exceed 100%.
public infrastructure (the thing that once made America great).
You're putting the cart before the horse. The wealth to make infrastructure comes from production, which is made possible by freedom and properly defined property rights. Freedom is poisoned by government power, and government power is made possible by taxation.
Short term capital gains (stocks held less than one year) are taxed at normal income tax rates. Long term capital gains are dependent upon a business being viable, and are truly an investment. The distinction is valid.
There is the further factor that the government is continually making the dollar worth less. $1 spent on something in 1970 might sell for $10 now. You'd owe taxes on the $9 capital gain, even when the actual value of the item (and the dollars exchanged) was the same or less.
Inheritance taxes don't start until a fairly substantial amount of money passes. They're a problem for family businesses with a large nominal value, but most people aren't affected by inheritance taxes. Someone is going to have to pay capital gains tax on stocks and real estate, but it's going to be at the reduced long term rate.
Probate need not be onerous if you're willing to do most of the work that a lawyer would normally do. Paying probate court fees is no joy, but it's not like the probate court is a major profit center for the state.
"loophole" is simply an insult, it means "an aspect of the law I don't like." Public education is one of the "artificial arrangements to circumvent obligations", the obligation being teaching the spawn you generated by fucking around. The "earned income tax credit", wherein a person gets net money from the government when honorable people are paying, is another of the "artificial arrangements to circumvent obligations", the obligation being to pay for the operations of the federal government which is stealing for you.
Buying on margin - the commonest form of borrowing on stocks - does not result in a forced sale unless the stock price falls ("margin call"). In that case you lose money, usually almost all of it. There is no capital gains tax on a loss, only the trivially small SEC transaction fee.
Borrowing money from a third party to buy stocks, or using stocks as collateral for a loan from a third party, is unwise financially and legally questionable.
Most of the money that goes through government is used to damage the economy and people's lives, and that's especially true of increments.
Rich people don't necessarily use increased income to employ people. They may buy products and services, which... increases someone else's income. They may leave it in a bank or put it in stocks or bonds... which is invested in someone else's business.
"Income redistribution" - stealing from the rich and giving to the poor - pretty much guarantees that the money will be used unwisely, because that's how the poor became poor in the first place: unwise, unsupervised use of money. Consider the current scandal in EBT card abuse.
Your objection, of course, is perfectly valid. But there's an overriding issue: overall taxes are too high. If overall taxes were, say, 2%, it wouldn't be worth much effort to dodge the taxes. Further, low tax levels would provide the government with more respect, and tax dodgers would be disrespected by almost everyone. A government subsiding on low income would be limited in the damage it could do, further helping its reputation.
Dogs and man are the primary cursorial hunters on this planet, and we have formed a partnership. It is no surprise that Obama devours his partners, something no honorable man would do.
There are ways to make exposures longer than a single frame period. In post production, simply average together adjacent frames to create each new frame. Alternately, use a beam splitter to capture the video in 2 streams, offset in time by half the period of a single stream.
The Bible does have Jesus claiming that his ideas were new and better than pre-existing ideas, but much of what he claimed to be new was a restatement of existing Jewish religion.
The (religion-based) argument for reducing or eliminating SS and Medicare is that charity must be private and (especially) voluntary, otherwise it does not go to a person's moral credit. Remember, once you exit the realm of the voluntary, you also exit the realm of morality. SS and Medicare depend entirely upon stealing (taxation) to achieve their goals, and stealing is condemned by Christianity.
Focusing too narrowly on the alleged goals of socialist government programs and the content of religious beliefs fails to recognize both the small values and great villainy in each.
The Old Testament is based largely on oral history, like the Iliad and the Odyssey. And like them, it is flawed with omissions, distortions, and additions to make a better story. There is archaeological evidence that provides support for parts of each. The I&O covers only a couple of decades, and claims only to be a history of the Trojan War, its causes and aftermath. The Old Testament claims to be the history of the universe and the ultimate explanation of everything, complete with a dictatorial moral code.
The New Testament, with its internal contradictions, is evidence of the fabrication of Christianity and the campaign to establish it as a widely accepted system.
Insanity can be restricted to a limited range of contexts, and insanity exists in varying degrees. For instance, phobias. To the extent that a person does not recognize reality and behave accordingly, he is insane (That's not a definition, it fails on some edge cases.). Theism meets the "recognize reality" criterion.
In general, I'd say that a lot of thinking underlies a belief since it has to make sense to those holding it
Explicitly wrong. In the Middle Ages, a famous Catholic proclaimed (approximately) "I believe it because it is impossible". When the faithful mind reaches an unavoidable contradiction, it blanks out.
There is no such thing as a being whose existence agrees with the story of Jesus in the Bible. Several of the towns he is claimed to have been in did not exist during the time he was alleged to have been there (archaeological evidence). What this is evidence of is a story made up whole cloth years later, when those towns did exist, by people ignorant of history.
What's the deal with treating "Pharaoh" as if it were a name? It's a title, like Mister or King. Either put an article before it or a name after it. The Pharaoh. Pharaoh Smith.
Do you really need to have someone else give you an explanation?
Tough luck. Choose something else and do it. Or find a new university. When you get your degree or finally decide not to get it, rewrite your nickel thesis, restate the data so it can't be traced back to you, and publish anonymously. It might be a good idea to also provide the results to any group who might find it politically advantageous.
If you're interested in revenge, write up memoirs naming the university and those who would have seen your documents and been able to quash them. Late in life, when you can no longer be hurt, publish. Or if you're extremely brave, ASAP.
Life extension is here and ongoing, and much of it is quite reasonably priced (www.lef.org).
Your implied claim that only the rich and politically connected would have access to life extension techniques is dishonest leftist demagoguery (but I repeat myself).
Slashdot Mirror
As a US citizen, you can reduce your US income tax by the amount of income taxes you pay abroad (or some portion thereof). Otherwise the combined tax rate could exceed 100%.
Amoral and immoral are different.
Completing the syllogism, thus there is no such thing as tax law
Since there is tax law, we have a contradiction, and one of your assumptions must be false.
You're putting the cart before the horse. The wealth to make infrastructure comes from production, which is made possible by freedom and properly defined property rights. Freedom is poisoned by government power, and government power is made possible by taxation.
Short term capital gains (stocks held less than one year) are taxed at normal income tax rates. Long term capital gains are dependent upon a business being viable, and are truly an investment. The distinction is valid.
There is the further factor that the government is continually making the dollar worth less. $1 spent on something in 1970 might sell for $10 now. You'd owe taxes on the $9 capital gain, even when the actual value of the item (and the dollars exchanged) was the same or less.
Inheritance taxes don't start until a fairly substantial amount of money passes. They're a problem for family businesses with a large nominal value, but most people aren't affected by inheritance taxes. Someone is going to have to pay capital gains tax on stocks and real estate, but it's going to be at the reduced long term rate.
Probate need not be onerous if you're willing to do most of the work that a lawyer would normally do. Paying probate court fees is no joy, but it's not like the probate court is a major profit center for the state.
"loophole" is simply an insult, it means "an aspect of the law I don't like." Public education is one of the "artificial arrangements to circumvent obligations", the obligation being teaching the spawn you generated by fucking around. The "earned income tax credit", wherein a person gets net money from the government when honorable people are paying, is another of the "artificial arrangements to circumvent obligations", the obligation being to pay for the operations of the federal government which is stealing for you.
Buying on margin - the commonest form of borrowing on stocks - does not result in a forced sale unless the stock price falls ("margin call"). In that case you lose money, usually almost all of it. There is no capital gains tax on a loss, only the trivially small SEC transaction fee.
Borrowing money from a third party to buy stocks, or using stocks as collateral for a loan from a third party, is unwise financially and legally questionable.
Most of the money that goes through government is used to damage the economy and people's lives, and that's especially true of increments.
Rich people don't necessarily use increased income to employ people. They may buy products and services, which ... increases someone else's income. They may leave it in a bank or put it in stocks or bonds ... which is invested in someone else's business.
"Income redistribution" - stealing from the rich and giving to the poor - pretty much guarantees that the money will be used unwisely, because that's how the poor became poor in the first place: unwise, unsupervised use of money. Consider the current scandal in EBT card abuse.
Your objection, of course, is perfectly valid. But there's an overriding issue: overall taxes are too high. If overall taxes were, say, 2%, it wouldn't be worth much effort to dodge the taxes. Further, low tax levels would provide the government with more respect, and tax dodgers would be disrespected by almost everyone. A government subsiding on low income would be limited in the damage it could do, further helping its reputation.
<sarcasm> The solution, of course, is to force everyone to buy health insurance </sarcasm>
The newest version of gimp, in 2012, is still harder to use than the last time I bought Photoshop in 1998. And Photoshop produces better results.
Photoshop is a ripoff but Adobe's competitors are inexcusably bad.
Dogs and man are the primary cursorial hunters on this planet, and we have formed a partnership. It is no surprise that Obama devours his partners, something no honorable man would do.
You didn't RTFA, did you? The new IC has poorer heat conduction, so it is hotter but produces less heat.
TFA says they're Griffon engines, not Merlin.
There are ways to make exposures longer than a single frame period. In post production, simply average together adjacent frames to create each new frame. Alternately, use a beam splitter to capture the video in 2 streams, offset in time by half the period of a single stream.
The Bible does have Jesus claiming that his ideas were new and better than pre-existing ideas, but much of what he claimed to be new was a restatement of existing Jewish religion.
The (religion-based) argument for reducing or eliminating SS and Medicare is that charity must be private and (especially) voluntary, otherwise it does not go to a person's moral credit. Remember, once you exit the realm of the voluntary, you also exit the realm of morality. SS and Medicare depend entirely upon stealing (taxation) to achieve their goals, and stealing is condemned by Christianity.
Focusing too narrowly on the alleged goals of socialist government programs and the content of religious beliefs fails to recognize both the small values and great villainy in each.
The Old Testament is based largely on oral history, like the Iliad and the Odyssey. And like them, it is flawed with omissions, distortions, and additions to make a better story. There is archaeological evidence that provides support for parts of each. The I&O covers only a couple of decades, and claims only to be a history of the Trojan War, its causes and aftermath. The Old Testament claims to be the history of the universe and the ultimate explanation of everything, complete with a dictatorial moral code.
The New Testament, with its internal contradictions, is evidence of the fabrication of Christianity and the campaign to establish it as a widely accepted system.
Insanity can be restricted to a limited range of contexts, and insanity exists in varying degrees. For instance, phobias. To the extent that a person does not recognize reality and behave accordingly, he is insane (That's not a definition, it fails on some edge cases.). Theism meets the "recognize reality" criterion.
No rational person considers anything miraculous.
Explicitly wrong. In the Middle Ages, a famous Catholic proclaimed (approximately) "I believe it because it is impossible". When the faithful mind reaches an unavoidable contradiction, it blanks out.
There is no such thing as a being whose existence agrees with the story of Jesus in the Bible. Several of the towns he is claimed to have been in did not exist during the time he was alleged to have been there (archaeological evidence). What this is evidence of is a story made up whole cloth years later, when those towns did exist, by people ignorant of history.
What's the deal with treating "Pharaoh" as if it were a name? It's a title, like Mister or King. Either put an article before it or a name after it. The Pharaoh. Pharaoh Smith.
Do you really need to have someone else give you an explanation?
Tough luck. Choose something else and do it. Or find a new university. When you get your degree or finally decide not to get it, rewrite your nickel thesis, restate the data so it can't be traced back to you, and publish anonymously. It might be a good idea to also provide the results to any group who might find it politically advantageous.
If you're interested in revenge, write up memoirs naming the university and those who would have seen your documents and been able to quash them. Late in life, when you can no longer be hurt, publish. Or if you're extremely brave, ASAP.
Life extension is here and ongoing, and much of it is quite reasonably priced (www.lef.org).
Your implied claim that only the rich and politically connected would have access to life extension techniques is dishonest leftist demagoguery (but I repeat myself).