Walmart Supercenter At 111 Yale St.

[Leonard]

"I wont start into how wrong you are on food/agriculture, something I am involved in daily"  - hey!  Me too!  I'm going to eat some food now. 

[august948]

When I get time I'll try to split the topic into Walmart and non-Walmart.  Maybe another topic just for the insult posts. 

It'd be easier just to move it to Way Off Topic and let the fun continue unabated.

[RedScare]

When I get time I'll try to split the topic into Walmart and non-Walmart.  Maybe another topic just for the insult posts. 

 

It won't work. Those who wish to blame Walmart for everything will continue to come back and post on the Walmart thread, prompting responses from others. Splitting it will only result in the same topic posted on two threads. This thread grew into what it is organically. You can't stop it without simply locking it. Better to just leave it alone. Leonard's question was more of a political statement than a request. I doubt he really wanted the post deleted. He just wanted to comment how far off topic it was, even for this thread.

[Marksmu]

Why are you so worried about "being on welfare later" if you're in the top tax bracket? Only the top bracket pays 20%, everyone else 15%. That is, people making over $400,000 a year.

 

Business income is filed on my personal income taxes - I don't take home $400,000/yr - it just looks like it on the taxes.  Money must be spent on capital improvements/maintenance/on going expenses, and also stashed away for future expansion/unforseen problems....

 

Business income of $400,000 results in take home of usually about 35% of that....If the investments pan out its great for everyone.  If not, its money lost.

 

It is precisely why the tax increases are so hard on small/medium size businesses.

[J008]

Business income is filed on my personal income taxes - I don't take home $400,000/yr - it just looks like it on the taxes.  Money must be spent on capital improvements/maintenance/on going expenses, and also stashed away for future expansion/unforseen problems....

 

Business income of $400,000 results in take home of usually about 35% of that....If the investments pan out its great for everyone.  If not, its money lost.

 

It is precisely why the tax increases are so hard on small/medium size businesses.

 

This makes no sense.

The top tax rate is around 35% and SE taxes phase out around 100k.  How does "take home" get to 35%?

 

The allusion to capital improvements,etc... are all immediately recoverable for tax so it would reduce your taxable income immediately.   

[RedScare]

This makes no sense.

The top tax rate is around 35% and SE taxes phase out around 100k.  How does "take home" get to 35%?

 

The allusion to capital improvements,etc... are all immediately recoverable for tax so it would reduce your taxable income immediately.   

 

He is suggesting that his profit on $400,000 is 35%, or $130,000. Of course, the tax rate on $130,000 is not 39.6%. It is 25%.

[Marksmu]

This makes no sense.

The top tax rate is around 35% and SE taxes phase out around 100k.  How does "take home" get to 35%?

 

The allusion to capital improvements,etc... are all immediately recoverable for tax so it would reduce your taxable income immediately.   

 

You are incorrect.  The 2013 top tax bracket is now 39.6% not 35%.  Look it up.  Same with new capital gains tax rate of 20%

 

SS & Medicare stops collecting at $113,000 I think.

 

When you have business income that is filed on your personal taxes as a K-1, the business income & profit is reported to you personally....there is an allusion that you have the money even though you do not. 

 

I use, and my accountant supports a rule of thumb - 40% taxes, 35% reinvestment, 25% pay out as expendable income.

 

So while the business may show a profit of $400,000 - taxes will take $158,400 of that - reinvestment into the business will take $140,000 and my "salary" would be $101,600.

 

The business is increasing in value, but to be successful in business you have to have capital available to take advantage of opportunities....this is why increasing the top tax brackets impacts small businesses so drastically.

Edited June 5, 2013 by Marksmu

[kylejack]

Business income is filed on my personal income taxes - I don't take home $400,000/yr - it just looks like it on the taxes.  Money must be spent on capital improvements/maintenance/on going expenses, and also stashed away for future expansion/unforseen problems....

 

Business income of $400,000 results in take home of usually about 35% of that....If the investments pan out its great for everyone.  If not, its money lost.

 

It is precisely why the tax increases are so hard on small/medium size businesses.

 

Revenue and income are different things. Capital improvements, maintenance, and expenses (and depreciation, and lots of other things) are claimed against income. Capital investment losses can also be claimed against income.

[Marksmu]

Revenue and income are different things. Capital improvements, maintenance, and expenses (and depreciation, and lots of other things) are claimed against income. Capital investment losses can also be claimed against income.

 

Its not revenue, its profit...its profit from the business being reinvested back into the business.  Its not depreciable, expensable or deductible until its spent...When it is cash in the business bank accounts, its profit subject to the top tax brackets when filed on your personal income taxes.

 

I could easily say, hmmm, I need to buy a car this month and just write myself a check for the car from the business account to my account.  That is not a taxable event b/c my business taxes are paid on my personal taxes. 

 

Its not that complicated.

[kylejack]

Whenever it gets spent, it is counted against your income. You're playing a shell game of trying to make it seem like $400K is really only $100K year after year, but whenever you spend that $300K on an investment in your business you get to discount it from income for the business.

 

And besides, your original premise is about spending that money on capital investments, so you're not saving it to spend it later, you're spending it now. In the hypothetical, that is.

[samagon]

You do realize that capital gains, are gains on income that has already been taxed once at the marginal rate, right?  I make $100 at my day job and I pay $39.6 to the government and get to keep $61.4...from that I take $50 and re-invest so that I wont be on welfare later in life....more than 1 year later (yes 1 whole year) I that $50 is worth $100 b/c I'm not an idiot, and when I want to take that $100 and move it to another smart investment, I now get to pay another 20% in capital gains (that was changed from 15%)...so my original $100 has now been taxed to the tune of $39.60 (regular income) + $10 (capital gains $50 basis, $50 gain)....so I have paid $49.60 on $100 - that is nearly 50%...

 

$100 Oridinary income - $39.60 taxes, $61.4 remaining (this ignores SS, & medicare & employer payroll taxes)

$50 reinvested, $50 gain  - $10 capital gains Taxes

Total cash remaining after all  taxes paid $101.40

Total paid in Taxes $49.60, effective tax rate of this person 48.9%  and of that $101.4, 50% was at risk of total loss AND untouchable for a whole year..but thats too low!?  When SS & Medicare are factored in the effective tax rate easily tops 50%, but you love listening to the lame stream media & Warren Buffett and the whole BS surrounding the I pay less than my secretary argument.

 

Your math is incorrect.

 

You were taxed at a 39% rate on $100, and 20% on $50. 

 

Or you can look at it as having paid $39 in taxes on $100, and paying $10 in taxes on $50.

 

Or you can look at it as having paid $49 in taxes on $150.

 

Whichever you look at it that does not equal 50% tax on $100.

 

If you're saying you paid 50% of what you had at the end of the day in taxes, then okay, but that's not how anyone calculates it.

[Marksmu]

Your math is incorrect.

 

You were taxed at a 39% rate on $100, and 20% on $50. 

 

Or you can look at it as having paid $39 in taxes on $100, and paying $10 in taxes on $50.

 

Or you can look at it as having paid $49 in taxes on $150.

 

Whichever you look at it that does not equal 50% tax on $100.

 

If you're saying you paid 50% of what you had at the end of the day in taxes, then okay, but that's not how anyone calculates it.

 

I understand your point, I am well versed in tax calculations, but I care ONLY about 2 numbers.

 

Amount of taxes paid to government $49.6

Amount of money I have after taxes. $101

 

Your last sentence is the way I look at it, which I understand is different than the way others are accustomed to looking at it. 

 

I have always thought that no taxes should be taken from a paycheck...every person should have their taxes withheld in a separate account they can't access, but then on tax day each person should be REQUIRED to write that check...currently nobody cares...heck 50% of the US thinks 4/15 is a payday.

[kylejack]

You keep two dollars for every one you give to the government out of your $400K income. Seems fine?

[samagon]

I understand your point, I am well versed in tax calculations, but I care ONLY about 2 numbers.

 

Amount of taxes paid to government $49.6

Amount of money I have after taxes. $101

 

Your last sentence is the way I look at it, which I understand is different than the way others are accustomed to looking at it. 

 

I have always thought that no taxes should be taken from a paycheck...every person should have their taxes withheld in a separate account they can't access, but then on tax day each person should be REQUIRED to write that check...currently nobody cares...heck 50% of the US thinks 4/15 is a payday.

 

I don't necessarily agree with your thought process regarding the numbers, I mean, it's a pool of $150, you get 2/3 and the govt gets 1/3.

 

The bolded part, yeah, if only they realized that the payday they get once for however much is a payday in interest every other day of the year for the IRS.

 

I wonder if everyone did their taxes appropriately so that they neither pay, nor get paid on Apr 15 how much the IRS would lose in interest?

[J008]

You are incorrect.  The 2013 top tax bracket is now 39.6% not 35%.  Look it up.  Same with new capital gains tax rate of 20%

 

SS & Medicare stops collecting at $113,000 I think.

 

When you have business income that is filed on your personal taxes as a K-1, the business income & profit is reported to you personally....there is an allusion that you have the money even though you do not. 

 

I use, and my accountant supports a rule of thumb - 40% taxes, 35% reinvestment, 25% pay out as expendable income.

 

So while the business may show a profit of $400,000 - taxes will take $158,400 of that - reinvestment into the business will take $140,000 and my "salary" would be $101,600.

 

The business is increasing in value, but to be successful in business you have to have capital available to take advantage of opportunities....this is why increasing the top tax brackets impacts small businesses so drastically.

 

You do realize that your decision to reinvest your money in your own business or someone elses has nothing to do with your take home pay.  Whatever you invest can be recovered for taxes either when it is spent or disposed of.  

 

 Additionally, these investments usually have an economic life greater than the recovery period for tax (especially for small businesses).  So they are actually helping you out here.

 

The whole k-1 issue is another tax advantage.  You could be a corp and have them pay tax and then you pay tax as well.  

 

Finally, you could be actually investing money accumulated in these prior years faster than you are earning and generate k-1 losses in which case you could possibly get refunds from prior years.  Perhaps a scenario where you recieve $200k in cash, and -$200k in taxable income.  

 

It is pretty clear what the tax rates are.  The top tax rate has hovered between 35-39% over the past 20 years or so any claim of your countrymen taking 2/3 your income should be called out. 

[TGM]

All these topics merge seamlessly...this thread has got to drive alot of traffic - its the one thread in all of the forums that I frequent that I keep coming back to....

Its a great topic its full of everything!

Well they said Walmart would increase traffic....most of it from the anti-Walmart folks. To think of all the pollution they caused by coal-powered data enter utilization.

[SilverJK]

In the spirit of Walmart, I believe this thread should encompass as any issues/topics/insults as possible.  Something for everyone in one stop... just like Walmart.  

[august948]

If you can find a way to link Walmart and rail then we might reach critical mass and atomize the servers.

[JJxvi]

WalMart is on the route of the proposed Inner Katy line that was in phase III or whatever of the old Metro Solutions maps...

[august948]

Kaboom!

[Leonard]

I thought this was interesting in light of the walkability issues with the Ainbinder/Walmart/Orr developments:

 

http://www.chron.com/bellaire/news/article/More-prominent-role-for-cycling-envisioned-4576227.php#src=fb

 

"About 40 percent of Houston residents don't drive for reasons including age, disability, income and preference, he said."

 

Forty percent - that's higher than I would have guessed. 

[august948]

I thought this was interesting in light of the walkability issues with the Ainbinder/Walmart/Orr developments:

 

http://www.chron.com/bellaire/news/article/More-prominent-role-for-cycling-envisioned-4576227.php#src=fb

 

"About 40 percent of Houston residents don't drive for reasons including age, disability, income and preference, he said."

 

Forty percent - that's higher than I would have guessed. 

No doubt that includes children who are underage for driving and/or don't have a car as well as older folks who have given theirs up.

[Leonard]

august - I was wondering about that.  At first I assumed "age" just meant elderly - but now I wonder if that 40% also includes children.  I have no idea how what the ratio of adults to children is in Houston. 

[august948]

august - I was wondering about that. At first I assumed "age" just meant elderly - but now I wonder if that 40 also includes children. I have no idea how what the ratio of adults to children is in Houston.

I don't know the exact percentage, but given the family-friendliness of the Houston area I'm certain that's a large chunk of the 40%.

[august948]

I thought this was interesting in light of the walkability issues with the Ainbinder/Walmart/Orr developments:

 

http://www.chron.com/bellaire/news/article/More-prominent-role-for-cycling-envisioned-4576227.php#src=fb

 

"About 40 percent of Houston residents don't drive for reasons including age, disability, income and preference, he said."

 

Forty percent - that's higher than I would have guessed. 

The 40% quote being used to justify an agenda is an example why everyone should read this book

Edited June 11, 2013 by august948

[Leonard]

Yeah - it would make more sense to know what percent of driving-age Houstonians don't drive and what percent of children live in a household with no driver/car. 

[Triton]

This thread is so pointless...

[SilverJK]

85% of statistics are made up.

[SmellyHoustonian]

The current discussion is kind of dumb, but as to the topic of the thread, I live on Koehler St. really close to the Wal Mart, and I think it's been a great addition. It's an easy place to get dog food and beer.

 

Most importantly, the neighborhood has markedly changed since it went up in October, derelict properties are being torn down at a very high rate, and replaced with better things, townhomes, or other development. Closer to the Wal Mart at Koehler and Bonner was a really bad part of the neighborhood, someone over there sells drugs, of the four bad homes, three have been torn down in the last few months, and I have to think it has a lot to do with the shiny new development at the end of the block.

[s3mh]

The current discussion is kind of dumb, but as to the topic of the thread, I live on Koehler St. really close to the Wal Mart, and I think it's been a great addition. It's an easy place to get dog food and beer.

 

Most importantly, the neighborhood has markedly changed since it went up in October, derelict properties are being torn down at a very high rate, and replaced with better things, townhomes, or other development. Closer to the Wal Mart at Koehler and Bonner was a really bad part of the neighborhood, someone over there sells drugs, of the four bad homes, three have been torn down in the last few months, and I have to think it has a lot to do with the shiny new development at the end of the block.

 

So, if I make the argument in the historic preservation thread that property values have gone through the roof since the expansion of the HDs and the amendments to the historic ordinance, everyone would be cool with that, right?