|
e_angst posted:I think encouraging home ownership isn't a bad thing. But the amount they let you deduct is kind of crazy and probably skews things too far. Combine it with other policies that incentivize home ownership (like California's Proposition 13) and you end up with a really hosed up market. Most middle and upper class people won't admit what their effective tax rate because doing so would undermine all the reasons to poo poo on the poor and talk about how they are paying for the poor, etc. The progressiveness of our tax structure is assumed in all political discussions (as a reason to lower taxes on the rich/business) but doesn't exist anymore in reality, except for very specific circumstances. And then add in poo poo like this (everyone that I know at a startup or who was at a startup, all regular low/mid-level employees did the same trick to get options in to a Roth free and clear): http://www.forbes.com/sites/deborahljacobs/2012/03/20/how-facebook-billionaires-dodge-mega-millions-in-taxes/ But yes, removing the mortgage interest deduction would restore some of the progressive nature the tax system is supposed to have. It'd also cause an instant an immediate backlash against whoever did it, and would be something only to do after treating capital gains like regular income instead of special bullshit (or worse, tax free at the federal level), actually taxing corporations, and ending the more insane tax shelters that cause real effective tax rates on the rich to be vastly lower than people who make normal amounts of income. About the only way I could see it happening is much like what I've said for removing Prop 13 - a phase out at a time of known housing price increases (as a result of massive lowering of interest rates or something). Even then the political attack ads write themselves.
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 19:38 |
|
|
Veskit posted:Wait you can dogpile a bunch of cheap rear end shares from a start up into a roth ira? Am I understanding that correctly? Options, not shares. I haven't done it myself (and am not a lawyer nor is this advice, but if you are in a startup I'd inquire with the right people), but as explained to me, startups have a set valuation schedule of sorts - share price and thus option value is not bound by any sort of market so reported worth of said securities is more what's declared by the company rather than a market. You can take stock options worth 'nothing' or close to it, and transfer said securities in to a Roth or other vehicle rather than cash, or something to that effect but the end result is getting out of the income tax and lots of money in to tax-advantaged account. Then later they are worth a shitload more money, which you can build on after that. There's some other method where you fill out some IRS form where you basically pay taxes on the options that are worth nothing (now), and then later when you sell them it's long-term capital gains rather than normal income (note that CA doesn't recognize the distinction, so they still pay the 9-13%). It's something similar to what Romney did to make at most 30k a year in contributions turn in to way the gently caress more than that: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/whats-really-going-on-with-mitt-romneys-102-million-ira/261500/
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2015 22:55
|
|