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.

Non-Tech : Who Really Pays Taxes? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ztect who wrote (288)	8/15/2000 5:22:10 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Respond to of 666

Options that vest after 3yrs are considered deferred income, and if I'm not mistaken are taxed at a lower marginal rate of 20%. Not any more... I don't think, but its so complicated and I have a tax guy... The way (I thought) it worked last time I exercised, Say 10K options, 4K vested at 40$/share. If you want to hold the stock you have to pay income tax on the difference between the grant and exercise price - this is even if you want to hold. So its 160,000 of income added to your tax return in order for you to put those 4k shares in your schwab account. You pay medicare on the total amount 1+% because there is no cap on medicare but SS caps at 75K or something. Someone once told me they would never remove the cap on SS since stock options are income and that matching 7% would kill companies like msft and cisco where the execs make in the millions.

To: ztect who wrote (288)	8/15/2000 5:28:24 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 666

Options that vest after 3yrs are considered deferred income, and if I'm not mistaken are taxed at a lower marginal rate of 20%. This is definitely not the case for non-qual options. They are taxed at the full rate as income regardless of when they vest. I am not sure if ISOs are treated differently.

To: ztect who wrote (288)	8/15/2000 5:29:26 PM
From: kvkkc1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 666

ztect, GWB's plan sets up private savings accounts for each individual who is contributing into the system. A portion of the tax is deposited in the individual's account while the remainder goes to pay the current recipients. The individual has the option to choose where the money would be invested from a group of plans, similar to 401K's, except without the tax advantage of the 401k. The assumption is that the individual savings accounts would grow faster than the current SS rate of return. The individual would have the choice to take the old system or try the ISA. If enough people found that the ISA worked better, it would relieve future Gov't payouts for SS. An added benefit is that the ISA would be able to be passed on to family after death. The current system stops payment if the member dies. Therefore, if you die before 65, or 67 if you are a younger person, your family would not have anything. The surviving spouse receives a pittance that leaves them in poverty. This is what Al Gore and Bill Clinton are fighting for. They care nothing about the poor and old.knc

To: ztect who wrote (288)	8/15/2000 6:17:47 PM
From: Bill	Respond to of 666

You better go read 83b before making such dumbass statements as that.

To: ztect who wrote (288)	8/16/2000 3:03:22 AM
From: Mama Bear	Respond to of 666

"Now considering SS , can some one please explain Dubya's system to me, since SS is not a "savings system"." It is a scheme to increase the gov't bureaucracy. Under the guise of giving 'control' to the worker it forces them to place money under the management of yet another layer of Federal control. If anyone seriously thinks that dubya's scheme will not increase the bite taken out of your paycheck, I'm still offering time shares in the Brooklyn Bridge. Message 14015376 Regards, Barb