For 99% of the population, you can give more than the annual gift exclusion and nobody pays a dime of tax.
The only thing the donor needs to do is file a gift tax return which is very easy and doesn’t cost much. At least I don’t charge much.
Can someone explain why childless, single working women is a bad thing?
- Thread starter Hawki97
- Start date
For 99% of the population, you can give more than the annual gift exclusion and nobody pays a dime of tax.
The only thing the donor needs to do is file a gift tax return which is very easy and doesn’t cost much. At least I don’t charge much.
Their whole argument is missing logic. There's a bunch of perceived slights toward families with children that have no basis in reality just hypotheticals.
SS is not taxed in many states. Some states have no income tax at all.
The point remains that not all income is taxed. It wouldn't be some extreme outlier to eliminate tax on tips.
From ChatGPT:
Progressive Tax Rates: Any gift amounts exceeding the annual exclusion and lifetime exemption are subject to gift tax at rates that range from 18% to 40%, depending on the size of the gift and cumulative gifts over the lifetime.
To each their own, who cares? The part that raises eyebrows is that nearly 70% of the people you describe vote Democrat and over half of those women are clinically diagnosed with a mental health issue. THAT is a MAJOR problem and points to something not being healthy or good about the lifestyle in general.
BUT IF IMMIGRATION DRIES UP WE'RE FREAKING DONE AS A COUNTRY MAN!!!
Wow, this thread went off the rails. My partner and I decided that neither of us want to have kids, so we're not having them. If that bothers you, then you can GFY. See Tim Walz' golden rule: "Mind your own damn business". We both have good paying jobs, but still have to watch our spending. I can't imagine trying to support a family with a household income under 100k (In 2024, the median annual household income is estimated to be $78,171).
@Hoosierhawkeye what's worse for society, someone that chooses not to have kids or someone that shits out 8 kids they can't afford and lives off the government teet?
@Hoosierhawkeye what's worse for society, someone that chooses not to have kids or someone that shits out 8 kids they can't afford and lives off the government teet?
All I see here is you saying you're selfish. How dare you and your partner decide what's best for you and do exactly that?! You're supposed to think of whats best for AMERICA and then do that instead.
We are talking about Federal taxes silly, but you knew that already and yes, it would be an outlier.
No reason in the world why the guy making $20/hr pays more in taxes than the guy getting paid a wage of $15/hr and getting another $15/hr in tips for a total of $30/hr. Dumb, Dumb. Dumb.
You say it’s obvious.
We have a vice presidential candidate calling women who don’t have kids sociopaths.
I've been talking about the regulation of taxes and the ability to exclude some income. You've been trying to say that all income is taxed and that's simply incorrect. I've given you many examples. Whether tips should continue to be taxed or be tax free for some workers is still in question, in my mind. But the rationale that they have to be taxed because all income is taxed is nonsense.
As for the differentiation in earnings, those are generally different jobs and often expects the cash tips will be non-taxed. Your own logic suggests the tip earner at $30/hr total is paying less in taxes as it stands now.
He’s got some agreeing with him on this board.
You guys ever think if a woman doesn’t want kids then it’s probably a blessing she doesn’t have any.
You're a woman can't you figure it out?Fewer oxygen thieves? Good. The world is way over-populated as it is.
Single and ready to mingle? Hell yeah.
Can buy her own shit instead of milking free drinks at the bar? Again, hell yeah.
Why are repubbers so worked up over this?
Which. Is. Why. We. Have. The. Inheritance. Tax.
Absent the step up in basis - which is how it worked for the first few years - the estate would owe taxes on the entire appreciation from the time of purchase. The heir could then be assessed a capital gains tax upon sale ALSO based on the full appreciation of the asset - it was treated as income.
It was the wealthy who called for the stepped-up basis because the record-keeping on their assets to track appreciation was odious. A flat tax at transfer was simpler. But it exists to capture the taxes an heir WOULD pay if they sold an inherited asset...or you could say it's to collect the taxes on the asset the deceased would have paid if they sold it...so still a tax on "income".
Yes, and it was one of the funniest goddamned things in the history of television!
In all fairness, most of those clips are from 3 years ago, I think.
They're being drummed up now because of the election.
I'd rather be a perv than a dirty rule breaker.
ridiculous. absolutely ridiculous.
I think there have also been some mothers telling childless women that having/raising kids can be a rewarding experience.
