Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (72402)	1/17/2000 1:32:00 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Hi Lizzie, I admire your passion for this subject. And you've certainly made some great points. The wealthy elderly have absolutely no case whatsoever. Living high on the hog at the expense of the working young is a sad moral state. But to answer your question... res-HiCan you explain to me why when a young person gets a stock option windfall of say, 500K they have to pay $7500 into medicare and when an older person makes 500K (as capital gains) in the markets they pay NOTHING? The elderly VOTE. And in far more numbers proportionally than the young. What really irritates me is when I hear young people complaining about the elderly benefits, then saying, "nah, I don't vote what's the use." (cynically). Not that this describes you. But I would be curious how many people in your work group actually vote. Or better yet, write their congressperson on a regular basis to describe their concerns. Michael

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (72402)	1/17/2000 1:34:00 PM
From: Constant Reader	Respond to of 108807

Stock options given to an employee are a form of compensation for work performed by that employee. It is, by definition, not passive income, but that obtained through active work. No FICA taxes are paid on capital gains - it is not active income. Your second question is irrelevant. Your third question is irrelevant. Your fourth question is poorly phrased and unclear. Your fifth question is answered above. The premise underlying the second half of your question is absolutely unprovable. If you don't know the answer to your sixth question, I can only say that, once again, you demonstrate your inability to understand the tax laws, and the reasoning behind those laws.