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 : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mike M2 who wrote (94286)	4/15/2001 11:35:14 AM
From: maceng2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

Mike, re I could see waiving penalties and interest with ample time to pay but the tax should be paid. Interesting. There is only so much blood that can come out of a stone. More tax revenue should help the economy according to the punters in charge here. I've read up a bit on the 30's depression. The primary cause in my mind is WW1 and the fact nobody was willing to wipe the slate clean and start anew. Then we got Hitler etc. Keynes was just another economist until it was realized he was the only thing standing between Britain and the commies. (or worse) Sometimes I think you should lay off that TL and EV stuff if you want to hang onto what you have got. -g- Remember, for each happy rich person, you need lots of reasonably happy poor guys. best wishes, pearly.

To: Mike M2 who wrote (94286)	4/15/2001 12:03:32 PM
From: Don Lloyd	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

Mike - Pearly, they do not deserve a break. The tech employees benefitted from the gains but now want to share the losses ? The public has suffered big losses in their tech stocks as well. I could see waiving penalties and interest with ample time to pay but the tax should be paid. Not having all the facts, I suspect that you're dead wrong on this. The issue is not paying on gains, but paying on gains and benefits that never existed except on paper due to a tax trap embedded in the option rules and the AMT. Regards, Don

To: Mike M2 who wrote (94286)	4/15/2001 1:53:49 PM
From: benwood	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

Mike, Q Public who put $5k into RealNetworks and saw it rise to $105K but drop back to $5k could sell or not sell today and own nor benefit nothing. An employee who exorcised options that cost $5k and were worth $105k on that peak day but held today owes $28,000 in taxes (or more? I don't know the rate used for AMT). That doesn't look the same to me. I still believe it's an individual's responsibility to know how to account for their compensation, investments, etc., but just because the tax code is availble to be read doesn't make it right, just, or anything else. It just means the IRS can and will collect it from you. Note that if in the former case the employees options rise in value from $105k to $205k, then they sold in late Dec. They'd now owe $56k in capital gains taxes (unless it's considered ordinary income, in which case it would be more). The point is, they don't get something for nothing -- they pay tax on the further gain, same as JQPublic. JQPublic gets to take a loss, though, and they don't, simply because they held it into 2001. That's my beef... holding it into the next year triggers positive taxation on losses. What's the point of that, to further punish them for their lousy options? Talk about massive injury to insult.