3 ms·
I'm not a tax expert so this assumption may be wrong, but if the 2X is being taxed as ordinary income at 35% wouldn't that imply that beagle3 is making at least
by sa5 15y ago
I'm not a tax expert so this assumption may be wrong, but if the 2X is being taxed as ordinary income at 35% wouldn't that imply that beagle3 is making at least $379,150 + 2X this year? I would consider someone with that kind of income to be rich.
Also, if the stock has gone down 40% can't you claim that as a loss when you sell and lessen your overall tax burden?
- beagle3 15y agoWell, it might be _just_ 33% depending on how my other projects work out this year. Not much of a difference those 2%. I've been doing well so far with actual work, and my investments seem to be going well, except that I keep getting hit on the crazy taxes (to the point that GOOD investments end up as losses!) The reason I "told HN" is that I was not aware of how bad not optimizing the taxes could be; I thought I'm wasting 5-10% of potential profits by not optimizing. Turns out to be more than 100% on a totally ordinary deal. > Also, if the stock has gone down 40% can't you claim that as a loss when you sell and lessen your overall tax burden? Not really - not with AMT.
- anamax 15y ago> wouldn't that imply that beagle3 is making at least $379,150 + 2X this year? I would consider someone with that kind of income to be rich. So what? Seriously - do you think that the US govt or NYC is likely to do better with that money than he would have? Based on what?
- sa5 15y agoIn my comment I did not state whether I agree or disagree with the current US tax laws and that was not the point. I was responding to the post above mine which I think made some incorrect assumptions concerning beagle3's income level and ability to afford professional accountants.