#Capital Gains Tax Exemptions

[financetalkies]

Section 54F

The gains arising out of long term investments are known as Long Term Capital Gains. There are few ways we can save our tax on Long Term Capital Gains. One of the most famous of the ways of savings tax available in Income Tax Act is SECTION 54F. Here are the details of the Tax Exemption under Section 54F: Under this section, whole consideration received on sale of capital assets other than…

[cadeveshthakur]

Latest Amendment on Long Term Capital Gain Taxability from AY24-25| Watch before filing ITR AY24-25

[centrally-unplanned]

Hot take but the sweep of super-rich donors coming into Trump's court recently isn't actually all of them going "yeah I hate Trump but I want those tax cuts". At least not primarily, like sure lower taxes is part of why they have Republican leanings to begin with. But billionaires are pretty price insensitive, it doesn't really matter to them all that much if they are paying 20% or 25% on their capital gains, they aren't spending it either way.

Instead its that they think he is gonna win. The Republican primary is over, he is the nom, Biden is set as the opponent, and the polling numbers are pretty clear on that contest. Might change of course, no one is sure, but you gotta back some horse if you are in this game. They don't need to donate to Trump to make him lower taxes on the rich, Republicans will do literally anything to lower taxes on the rich, its their most sacred principle. Like I'm not mocking them there, its objectively true, its nearly the only active agenda item they have consistently pursued in every single administration over the past several decades. You do not need to donate to them to make them do that, and you also don't think your donation is gonna make that much of a different on the win odds. Those donations probably won't pay for themselves vis a vis tax cuts.

What it does do is buy you influence for other agenda items the Republicans don't care about, but might sell to you. And Trump is infamously willing to sell an awful lot of the policy space to the highest bidder, even if he is quite mercurial when it comes to the execution on that. Its not about "lowering taxes", its about getting an exemption for The One Product Your Business Needs on the the tariff policy, or a specific deregulation of biotech rules at the FDA, or w/e. Many of which wont even be directly about making money! Some will be but again price insensitive, its about ideology and vision for projects and other stuff. And the majority (not all ofc) would in fact be quite happy to buy that from Biden, if he was A: selling so openly, and B: likely to win. Since neither is true, they are taking the deal on hand.

[mariacallous]

American wealth has grown remarkably over the last 25 years, with household net worth climbing from $47.5 trillion in 1997 to $139 trillion in 2021 (in 2021 dollars)—an increase from 256% of gross domestic product (GDP) in 1997 to 424% over the same period.

Equally remarkably, households headed by people aged 55 and older have enjoyed almost all (97%) of this growth (see Figure 1), and 75% occurred in the wealthiest 10% of households aged 55 and older. Both the number of households and wealth per household among households aged 55 and older have increased faster than in the rest of the population. As a result, the U.S. can expect the largest flows of intergenerational wealth transfers over the next several decades in modern history, and a substantial share of that wealth—especially among the very wealthiest households—will be passed down within families in a way that maintains family dynasties and increases wealth inequality.

Taxing these flows of wealth judiciously could raise revenue while improving equity among taxpayers and boosting their economic mobility. But the estate tax, the traditional way to tax such transfers, has been eviscerated in recent years. It exempts so much income and contains so many loopholes that only 1 in every 1,300 estates pay the tax. Given the impending wealth transfers and the emaciated nature of the estate tax, wealth transfer taxes are of current policy interest. In recent policy proposals by seven think tanks to address the long-term fiscal imbalance, all seven proposed some reform of the taxation of wealth transfers.

Our new study provides both new methodology for studying transfer taxes and new results. No data set has information on both bequests (what a person leaves to another) and inheritances (what a person receives from another). We adapt by estimating bequests and inheritances via independent methods using the Survey of Consumer Finances. The methodology does not require that the two estimates be equal, but they turn out to be close both in their aggregate and distribution. We can examine wealth transfer taxes from the point of view of the donor or the recipient, though in this initial project, we analyze all options assuming that heirs bear the burden of the tax (following work by other scholars).

We examine several policies—including inheritance taxes and taxing unrealized capital gains at death. In this brief, however, we focus on reforming the estate tax. In 1972, 6.5% of decedents paid estate taxes, generating 0.4% of GDP in revenues. By 1997, only 2.1% of decedents paid estate taxes, equaling just 0.19% of GDP. And by 2021, the tax raised just $18 billion, or 0.08% of GDP, in revenue.  

We show that, if the estate tax had remained in its 2001 form and been indexed for inflation, it would have raised an estimated seven times as much revenue in 2021, or $145 billion. The weakened estate tax cost the federal government significant revenue, especially given how substantially the ratio of bequeathable net worth to GDP grew over this period. 

As policymakers look for ways to address large and persistent federal deficits, shoring up the estate tax should be under consideration. It could generate more federal revenue, boost taxpayer equity, and improve economic mobility. 

[darkmaga-returns]

By now, we are all aware of the plans of the mad scientists and billionaires to cover (CO2 absorbing) pasture and crop land with onshore wind turbines and solar plants. We are also aware of the intent to remove livestock – cattle, sheep, pigs and chickens – so that we ear bugs and ay land not polluted with solar panels and wind turbines is returned to nature for “rewilding”. We have seen how, in the UK, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is a huge sponsor of wind turbines that kill birds.

Here is an article that highlights the continuing war on farmers in the UK – via the inheritance tax that taxes unrealised capital gains – forcing the farms to be sold if there is insufficient cash to pay the inheritance tax calculated by bureaucrats.

Pay particular attention to the verbiage here:

“Inheritors will have to pay 20% of the value of the agricultural and business property above £1million. Having tax exemptions currently costs "about £1bn a year for taxpayers", according to Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Darren Jones.”

“Taxation exemption costs…”!!! Hey Mr Jones, it’s not your effing money! What you are doing is not “closing an exemption”, it is imposing a tax that did not previously exist! The argument here s that “society” is being cheated by people who have accumulated wealth in the value of farms – regardless of the ups and downs of the land owned by the farm or whether the value is in livestock or solar panels/wind turbines!

All taxation is theft. No money paid to the State is the State’s by right – it is a privilege granted by voters.

In my view, VAT is a tax imposed on the country in order for it to join the EU. The UK is no longer in the EU, ergo, VAT should be abolished. It acts as a trade tariff for imports and has increased the cost of living by its percentage rate.

Mind you, it is also my view that government spending, especially on health, needs to be reduced by at least half and that taxation should be simplified to abolish ALL customs and excise duties, tobacco or alcohol taxes, or road taxes, TV license fees and there should be a flat corporate and income tax rate of 15% with NO ALLOWANCES. Vote for me!

[ingek73]

The Observer

Monarchy

King and Prince William’s estates ‘making millions from charities and public services’

Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster likely to make at least £50m from leasing land to services such as NHS and schools, according to investigation

Richard Palmer

Sat 2 Nov 2024 20.50 CET

King Charles and Prince William’s property empires are taking millions of pounds from cash-strapped charities and public services including the NHS, state schools and prisons, according to a new investigation.

The reports claim the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, which are exempt from business taxes and used to fund the royals’ lifestyles and philanthropic work, are set to make at least £50m from leasing land to public services. The two duchies hold a total of more than 5,400 leases.

One 15-year deal will see Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS hospital trust in London pay £11.4m to store its fleet of electric ambulances in a warehouse owned by the Duchy of Lancaster, the monarch’s 750-year-old estate.

The king will also make at least £28m from windfarms because the Duchy of Lancaster retains a feudal right to charge for cables crossing the foreshore, according to an investigation by Channel 4’s Dispatches and the Sunday Times.

William’s Duchy of Cornwall, the hereditary estate of the heir to the throne, has signed a £37m deal to lease Dartmoor prison for 25 years to the Ministry of Justice, which is liable for all repairs despite paying £1.5m a head for a jail empty of prisoners because of high levels of radon gas.

His estate also owns Camelford House, a 1960s tower block on the banks of the Thames, which has brought in at least £22m since 2005 from rents paid by charities and other tenants. Two cancer charities, Marie Curie and Macmillan – of which the king is a longstanding patron – have both recently moved out to smaller premises.

The Duchy of Cornwall has charged the Royal Navy more than £1m to build and use jetties and moor warships. It also charges the army to train on Dartmoor but the Ministry of Defence refused a Freedom of Information Act request asking how much it costs. The duchy also made more than £600,000 from the construction of a fire station and stands to get nearly £600,000 from rental agreements with six state schools.

In spite of the king and Prince William’s speeches and interventions on environmental issues, many residential properties let out by the royal estates are in breach of basic government energy efficiency standards.

InvestigatorsThe investigation found 14% of homes leased by the Duchy of Cornwall and 13% by the Duchy of Lancaster have an energy performance rating of F or G. Since 2020, it has been against the law for landlords to rent out properties that are rated below an E under the Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards regulations.

The Duchy of Lancaster said: “Over 87% of all duchy-let properties are rated E or above. The remainder are either awaiting scheduled improvement works or are exempted under UK legislation.”

The royal estates also have deals with mining and quarrying companies.

The investigation has prompted calls for a parliamentary investigation and for the two empires to be folded into the crown estate, which sends its profits to the government. The king and Prince William pay income tax on profits from the estates after business expenses have been deducted, but both now refuse to say how much.

Critics say the estates, the income from which have been used by successive governments to keep the headline cost of the monarchy to the taxpayer down, enjoy a commercial advantage over rivals because they are exempt from corporation tax and capital gains tax.

Baroness Margaret Hodge, a former chair of the Commons public accounts committee, said the duchies should at least pay corporation tax. “This would be a brilliant time for the monarch to say, I’m going to be open, and I want to be treated as fairly as anybody,” she said.

Both duchies said they were commercial operations that complied with statutory requirements to disclose information. They also emphasised their efforts to become greener.

The Duchy of Lancaster said: “His majesty the king voluntarily pays tax on all income received from the duchy.”

-

&

Over the last two decades the royals have made £22m from the rental of office space in "Charity Towers" at commercial rates to organisations such as Marie Curie, MacMillan Cancer Support and Comic Relief. The King is the patron of Marie Curie and MacMillan

(from someone who is not a sycophant)

Disgusting

And they are already getting half a billion every year

[magnetictapedatastorage]

full article under the cut

June 12, 2024

By David Wallace-Wells

Opinion Writer

Here is what the indefinite pause on New York City’s congestion pricing program, if it sticks, will cost: 120,000 more cars daily clogging Lower Manhattan’s bumper-to-bumper streets, according to a New York State analysis, and perhaps $20 billion annually in additional lost productivity and fuel and operating costs, as well as health and environmental burdens and a practically unbridgeable budget shortfall for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority that will straitjacket an already handicapped agency and imperil dozens of planned necessary capital improvement projects for the city’s aging subway system.

Here is what it gains Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, who announced her unilateral decision about the suspension last week: perhaps slightly better chances for New York Democrats in a couple of fall congressional races. According to reporting, these are especially important to the House minority leader, Hakeem Jeffries, who may still be somewhat embarrassed about his state’s performance in the 2022 elections, when surprise victories for several New York Republicans kept the House of Representatives out of Democratic control. It has also handed the governor several news conferences so bungled, they have made reversing a policy unpopular with voters into a genuine political humiliation.

In her announcement, Hochul emphasized the precarious state of the city’s recovery from the Covid pandemic, but car traffic into Manhattan has returned to prepandemic levels, as has New York City employment, which is now higher than ever before; New York City tourism metrics are barely behind prepandemic records and are expected to surpass them in 2025. Tax coffers have rebounded, too, to the extent that the city canceled a raft of planned budget cuts. The one obvious measure by which the city has not mounted a full pandemic comeback is subway ridership — a measure that congestion pricing would have helped and pausing it is likely to hurt.

In announcing the pause, she also expressed concern for the financial burden the $15 surcharge would impose on working New Yorkers, though the city’s working class was functionally exempted from the toll by a rebate system for those with an annual income of $60,000 or less. In a follow-up news conference, she emphasized a few conversations she’d had with diner owners, who she said expressed anxiety that their business would suffer when commuters wouldn’t drive to their establishments. But each of them was within spitting distance of Grand Central, where an overwhelming share of foot traffic — and commercial value — comes from commuters using mass transit.

Robinson Meyer, a contributing Times Opinion writer, wrote for Heatmap that delaying the plan will be “a generational setback for climate policy in the United States,” adding that “it is one of the worst climate policy decisions made by a Democrat at any level of government in recent memory.” He called it worse than the Mountain Valley Pipeline and the Willow oil project in Alaska — not just because of the direct effect on emissions, though that would be large, but what a pause means for the morale and momentum of any American movement toward a next-generation, climate-conscious urbanism.

For years, the country’s liberals have envied the transformation of London by its Ultra Low Emission Zone, which generates hundreds of millions of pounds annually and quickly cut nitrogen dioxide air pollution in central London by 44 percent from projected levels. And liberals practically salivated over the remaking of Paris by Mayor Anne Hidalgo, whose policies have significantly reduced the number of cars in the city center, cutting nitrogen oxide pollution by 40 percent from 2011 levels, and turned huge swaths of the urban core into a paradise for pedestrians and bikers.

Similar programs have been carried out in Stockholm and Oslo, proving remarkably popular, and while it didn’t exactly seem likely that all the world’s cities were on the verge of leaving behind the car, the fact that any American city was taking the leap looked like a sign that change was possible. There aren’t many places in the United States that could plausibly hope to take even a few steps in the direction of the 15-minute city. But the New York City metro area — which has higher public transportation ridership than the next 16 American cities combined and whose residents account for 45 percent of U.S. commutes by public transit — was the obvious place to try. At least until last week.

To enthusiastic reformers, the reversal was all the more painful because the obvious hurdles had already been cleared. Especially after the Inflation Reduction Act kicked off a frenzied real-world spending spree, progress-minded Democrats have argued about the difficulties of building things at anywhere close to the necessary speed, taking aim at a bundle of obstacles to more rapid development and build-out of green infrastructure — rampant NIMBYism, burdens of environmental review, permitting and zoning challenges, social justice litmus tests. It had taken a few decades, but congestion pricing had jumped through all the necessary hoops. The everything bagel had been slathered with cream cheese and was ready to serve. And Hochul put the kibosh on it anyway.

The cash-strapped Metropolitan Transportation Authority has spent $500 million developing the system and installing its hardware, and the inevitable shortfall now means a much less ambitious future for the agency, to trust its spokesmen, which is now probably incapable of extending the Second Avenue Subway or undertaking the Interborough Express project, which promised to revitalize huge corridors of Brooklyn and Queens and give more than 100,000 New Yorkers more viable public transit commutes. (Hochul says the pause won’t imperil those projects.) The pause may even be illegal, as State Senator Liz Krueger argued last week in The Daily News.

But for all its inscrutability, Hochul’s reversal follows a recent partisan pattern, a sort of centrist backlash among establishment Democrats and their supporters against left-wing causes and their supporters in the run-up to the November elections, partly as a matter of electoral strategy and perhaps as part of a pre-emptive blame game in anticipation of Republican victories, possibly including Donald Trump’s re-election.

The backlash is perhaps most visible in commentary from liberal pundits, who in recent weeks have tried to blame the party’s left wing for President Biden’s dicey re-election prospects, though the most obvious drags on those chances are his age and voters’ perceptions about the cost of living. At the national level it is best embodied by Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, who rarely speaks at length but happily seizes opportunities to punch left, particularly toward those protesting the war in Gaza. More locally, it is embodied by Mayor Eric Adams, who won election in 2021 as a kind of centrist backlash candidate — hailed at the time as a political counterweight to progressive candidates like Maya Wiley and progressive forces like the Black Lives Matter movement and perhaps even as a future face of the Democratic Party — and whose approval ratings are now lower than any other New York City mayor in decades, even as the city has inarguably bounced back from its pandemic trough on his watch.

Hochul has been a less visible and less polarizing figure than Adams. But every time she has poked her head up and made national news lately, it has been in the same spirit, to roll her eyes at or pick fights with those to her left. In February she mocked critics of Israel’s war in Gaza by saying, “If Canada someday ever attacked Buffalo, I’m sorry, my friends, there would be no Canada the next day.” (She later apologized.) In March she suddenly deployed the state’s National Guard to patrol the subways, on the same day that Adams boasted about rapid declines in subway crime. And now on congestion pricing, just weeks after bragging she was proud to stand up to “set in their ways” drivers, she reversed course out of apparent deference to those drivers and their outsize political clout. The state government and the transit authority have hard-earned reputations for ineffectuality, and faced with an opportunity to do something big, the governor chose to retreat and do nothing instead.

“It makes me think about the fight for progress, and how any real progress in the moment seems impossible,” wrote Cooper Lund in a melancholy reflection he called “Who Gets to Be a Constituent?” Nine times as many people ride public transit into the central business district each day as take cars there. There are 11 times as many people living in Manhattan who breathe the air polluted by automobile exhaust each day as there are who drive there for work. And those who work in the greater New York area lose 113 million hours each year to traffic, at an estimated cost of nearly $800 for each commuter. “With N.Y.C.’s reputation you’d think that the Democrats would be eager to uphold the city as an example of what a liberal, multicultural society is capable of, and to foster it,” Lund went on. “But both the mayor or the governor proved that they don’t have any interest in that. Instead, the things that would improve the city are pushed away for the suburban lifestyle that both parties seem to agree represents their actual constituency.”

A generation ago, it was common for informed liberals to lament the transformation of the country’s densest and most walkable city into a traffic-snarled carscape at the hand of Robert Moses in the mid-20th century. But despite the rise of YIMBYism and a sort of conventional wisdom new urbanism, the city hasn’t become meaningfully less automobile-centric since. More cars traveled into Lower Manhattan in 1990 than in 1981, more came in 2000 than in 1990, and although the rates dropped a bit after Sept. 11, they were still slightly higher in 2010 than they were 20 years before and have remained pretty flat since. Decades into new urbanism, the country’s most walkable city has just about the same number of cars driving into its in-demand downtown.

Taxi registrations doubled from 1980 to 2010 and then grew even more rapidly through the Uber years that followed, so that there are now five times as many taxis registered in the city as there were nearly 40 years ago and two and a half times as many taxi rides. (The difference between the two figures suggests that a pretty big portion of the increase is empty cars idling or cruising without fares.) Since 2006, excess congestion has grown by 53 percent, and since 2010, the average travel speed in the central business district has fallen 22 percent, from a crawl of 9.1 miles per hour to a glacial 7.1. I can comfortably run faster.

As has been the case everywhere, the kind and size of cars in New York have changed, too. When I was growing up there in the 1980s and ’90s, I could look out at the streetscape and see things other than trucks and supersized sport utility vehicles — trees, storefronts, pedestrians on the opposite curb, each of them visible because the streets were much less packed with automobiles the size of small elephants. Parking spots were not walls of S.U.V.s back then but lines of sedans, nestled along the sidewalk, it seemed, almost like a string of small boats puttering by the boarding platform of a flume ride. I remember climbing down into cars then, even as a 9- or 10-year-old. As a grown-up, I’m now climbing up, into what feels more like a cockpit and an imperious claim to the street.

My parents and in-laws remember a different kind of city still, the kind where you could park right in front of restaurants, play stickball in the street with infrequent interruptions, ride bikes down the cobblestones of SoHo and see only the occasional delivery truck along the way. I never knew that world, except through photographs and the haze of secondhand nostalgia. By the time I came around, the streets were already pretty full of cars. But even so, the city as a whole didn’t seem to belong to them yet. Certainly they didn’t seem to be holding its future hostage.

[procelibacyactivism]

The Self-Made Myth

The Role of Luck and Timing

We all know wealth isn’t just a matter of hard work, brains or talent. Most of us probably know some hard-working, brilliant or extraordinarily talented people who aren’t being rewarded at anything close to their true value. So perhaps the most intriguing and useful part of the book is a long discussion of the many other factors that go into making someone wealthy — factors that are blithely brushed off the table whenever the self-made myth is invoked.

Rich conservatives have to downplay the role of luck. After all, if we think they’re just lucky, rather than exceptionally deserving of exceptional wealth, we’ll be a lot more justified in taxing their fortunes. But luck — the fortunate choice of parents, for example, or landing the right job or industry at the right time — plays a huge role in any individual’s success. Timing also matters: Most of the great fortunes of the 19th century were accumulated by men born during the 1830s, who were of an age to capitalize on the huge economic boom created by the expansion of the railroads after the Civil War. Likewise, the great tech fortunes almost all belong to people born between 1950 and 1955, who were well-positioned to create pioneering companies in the tech boom of the late 1970s and 1980s. Such innovative times don’t come along very often; and being born when the stars lined up just so doesn’t make you more entitled. It just makes you luckier.

Because Americans in general like to think we’re an equal society, we’re also quick to discount the importance of race, gender, appearance, class, upbringing and other essential forms of social capital that can open doors for people who have it – and close them on those who don’t. The self-made myth allows us to deflect our attention from these critical factors, undermining our determination to level the playing field for those who don’t start life with a pocket fat with advantages.

What Changes?

The book winds up with specific policy prescriptions that can bring the built-together reality back into sharper political and cultural focus. The last section shows how abandoning the self-made myth for a built-together reality creates fresh justification for a more progressive income tax, the repeal of the capital gains exemption and raising corporate and inheritance taxes. It also makes a far more compelling philosophical backdrop against which progressives can argue for increased investment in infrastructure, education, a fair minimum wage, a strong social safety net, and better anti-discrimination laws.

But the most striking thing about the book — implicit throughout, but explicit nowhere — was the alternative vision of capitalism it offers. Throughout the book, Miller and Lapham seem to be making the tacit case that businesses premised on the built-together reality are simply more fair, more generous, more sustainable, and more humane. While far from perfect (Disney’s empire being one case in point), they are, as a group, markedly more aware of the high costs of exploiting their workers, their customers, the economy or the environment. Owners who believe themselves to be beholden to a community for their success will tend to value and invest back into that community, and they seem to be far more willing to realize when they’ve got enough and it’s time to start giving back.

The implication is clear: if we can interrupt American’s long love affair with the self-made myth, we will effectively pull the center tent pole out from under the selfish assumptions that shelter most of the excesses of corporate behavior that characterize our age. This isn’t just another point of contention between progressives and conservatives; it’s somewhere near the very center of the disconnect between our worldviews. “The Self-Made Myth” is an essential primer that gives us the language and stories to begin talking about this difference, and the tools to begin to bend that conversation in some new and more hopeful directions.

[dailyanarchistposts]

The Economic Power of Land

Class-struggle anarchists focus their activities on the conflict between the working class and the bosses. Nowadays the usual image of the ruling class is as industrialists and financiers; the land-owning aristocracy are not considered to be the main source of capitalist power. Our analysis firmly describes landowners as an integral part of the ruling class, both in the sense of holding real economic power and in the ideological role they play in keeping the working class in their place. The land-owning class and their lackeys are a fundamental part of the British ruling class and are immensely powerful and well organised. We ignore them at our peril.

Despite propaganda about impoverished aristos and the supposed increase in land ownership by the government and the National Trust, around 80% of Britain’s land is in private hands. A hard core of titled families own almost one-third of Britain, with 60%-70% of these owning at least 5,000 acres. The Crown’s holdings are enormous: 335,000 acres of farmland, 38,285 acres of commercial forest, the entire shoreline, half the foreshore! The Queen’s private holdings are separate from this and include 50,000 at Balmoral, 20,000 acres at Sandringham and 50,000 acres of Lancaster. The Duke of Buccleuch owns 277,000 acres of Scotland and 11,000 acres of Northamptonshire. Despite the image of the struggling farmer promoted by the Countryside Alliance, the average farm size is 170 acres, much higher than the average in the rest of the EC. And consolidation of farm holdings is increasing: when a farm is sold it is other farmers that buy it. Owning land may not appear to confer economic power and wealth in an economy dominated by industry and commerce. Many landowners like to give the impression that it is a great burden. Looked at more carefully, land ownership brings enormous benefits. The value of the land itself is the first source of wealth. Since the Development Land Tax was abolished in 1985, increases in the value of land for development are subject only to a capital gains tax. Other ways of making money from the land include leasing it out to farmers, hunting and fishing rights and mining. For example, the Duke of Derbyshire receives an estimated £1.8 million in royalties every year for the mining of Derbyshire limestone. Though landowners are associated with the countryside, they also own much of urban Britain. The most well-known is the Duke of Westminster who owns a large chunk of central London including Mayfair and Belgravia. Agriculture and forestry bring the greatest benefits, chiefly in the form of subsidies. Farmers are exempt from rates on agricultural land and buildings and are also exempt from paying VAT. It is estimated that the combined benefit from all subsidies comes to £20-£30,000 per year per farmer. Forestry is another good source of income (and handouts). There has been a great increase in forestation in recent years, of which 80% is in the private sector. But while planting conifers offers a quick return its causes many ecological problems.

[masllp]

Company Registration Delhi by MASLLP: Your Gateway to Success

Starting a business in Delhi, India’s bustling capital, is a dream for many entrepreneurs. With its vibrant economy, diverse markets, and a supportive ecosystem for startups, Delhi offers immense opportunities. However, one of the critical first steps is company registration, which lays the foundation for a legally recognized and operational business. At MASLLP, we simplify the process, helping you navigate the complexities with ease and efficiency. Why Register Your Company? Company registration is essential for any business to operate legally. Here’s why it’s important: Legal Recognition: It gives your business a distinct identity and ensures compliance with government regulations. Trust and Credibility: A registered company gains more trust among customers, investors, and suppliers. Tax Benefits: Enjoy various tax advantages and exemptions available to registered businesses. Access to Funding: Only registered companies are eligible to secure bank loans or attract investors. Types of Companies You Can Register in Delhi MASLLP assists businesses in registering various types of entities, including: Private Limited Company Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) One Person Company (OPC) Sole Proprietorship Partnership Firm Section 8 Company (Non-profit organizations) Steps for Company Registration Delhi At MASLLP, we make the registration process straightforward and hassle-free. Here’s an overview of the steps involved: Choose Your Business Structure: Decide on the type of company that suits your business goals. Name Approval: We help you select a unique and compliant company name. Documentation: Submit essential documents like PAN, Aadhar, address proof, and other required details. Digital Signature Certificate (DSC) and Director Identification Number (DIN): We assist in obtaining these mandatory credentials. Incorporation Application: Filing the incorporation application with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA). Certificate of Incorporation: Once approved, you receive the Certificate of Incorporation, making your company officially registered. Why Choose MASLLP? MASLLP stands out as a reliable partner for company registration Delhi due to the following: Expert Guidance: Our team has extensive experience in handling complex registration processes. End-to-End Support: From documentation to compliance, we manage everything for you. Quick and Hassle-Free Process: We ensure your registration is completed in the shortest possible time. Customized Solutions: Tailored services based on your business type and requirements. Documents Required for Company Registration To ensure a smooth process, keep the following documents ready: PAN card of directors/partners Address proof (electricity bill, water bill, etc.) Passport-sized photographs Business address proof (rent agreement or property papers) Conclusion Registering your company is the first step toward building a successful business in Delhi. With MASLLP by your side, the process becomes seamless and stress-free. Our expert team takes care of all the intricacies, ensuring your business complies with all legal requirements. Let MASLLP help you turn your entrepreneurial vision into reality. Contact us today for professional assistance with company registration Delhi!

[fininformatory]

Union Budget 2024 (India) Summary

The Union Budget 2024 of India focuses on simplifying tax processes, promoting economic growth, and supporting various sectors. Here are the key highlights:

Simplification of Tax Processes

Income Tax Returns (ITR): The process of filing ITR has been simplified.

Revised Tax Deductions and Rates

Standard Deduction: Increased from ₹50,000 to ₹75,000 in the new tax regime.

Family Pension Deduction: Enhanced from ₹15,000 to ₹25,000.

New Tax Structure:

No tax on income up to ₹3 lakhs.

5% tax on income from ₹3 lakhs to ₹7 lakhs.

10% tax on income from ₹7 lakhs to ₹10 lakhs.

15% tax on income from ₹10 lakhs to ₹12 lakhs.

20% tax on income from ₹12 lakhs to ₹15 lakhs.

30% tax on income above ₹15 lakhs.

Changes in Import Taxes

Gold and Silver: Import tax reduced from 6.5% to 6%.

Support for Start-ups and Entrepreneurs

Angel Tax Exemption: Investors in start-ups are exempt from the angel tax.

Late Payment of TDS: No longer considered a crime.

Changes in Capital Gains Tax

Long-Term Capital Gains Tax: Set at 12.5%.

Short-Term Capital Gains Tax: Increased to 20%.

Industrial and Economic Growth Initiatives

Capital Gains: Increase in capital gain limit.

Industrial Parks: Plug and Play Industrial Park Scheme in 100 cities.

Export Concessions: For mineral products.

Support for Women: ₹3 lakh crores provision.

Cheaper Goods: Electric vehicles, gold and silver jewelry, mobile phones, and related parts.

Agriculture: Priority on increasing production.

FDI Simplification: Simplified process for foreign direct investment.

Interest-Free Loans: To states for 15 years.

Rural Development: ₹2.66 lakh crores provision.

Support for Farmers: ₹1.52 lakh crores provision.

Education Loans: Financial support for loans up to ₹10 lakhs for higher education.

Nine Priorities for Upcoming Years

Manufacturing and Services

Urban Development

Energy Security

Infrastructure

Innovation and R&D

Next-Generation Reforms

Productivity and Resilience in Agriculture

Employment and Skilling

Inclusive Human Resource Development and Social Justice

Employment-Linked Incentives

First-Time Employees: One-month wage incentive.

Manufacturing Sector: Incentives for employers and employees for four years.

Youth Employment: Incentives for 30 lakh youths entering the job market.

EPFO Contribution Reimbursement

Government will reimburse ₹3,000 per month towards EPFO contribution for two years for each additional employee.

E-Commerce and Youth Internship Initiatives

E-Commerce Export Hub: To be created in collaboration with the private sector.

Youth Internship Scheme: Internships for 1 crore youth with a one-time assistance of ₹6,000 and a monthly allowance of ₹5,000 during the internship.

The Union Budget 2024 aims to drive economic growth, support various sectors, simplify tax procedures, and provide robust support for employment and youth development. By focusing on these areas, the budget seeks to create a more inclusive and prosperous economy for all citizens. Click here read more

[rjzimmerman]

Excerpt from this David Wallace-Wells Op-Ed published by the New York Times:

Here is what the indefinite pause on New York City’s congestion pricing program, if it sticks, will cost: 120,000 more cars daily clogging Lower Manhattan’s bumper-to-bumper streets, according to a New York State analysis, and perhaps $20 billion annually in additional lost productivity and fuel and operating costs, as well as health and environmental burdens and a practically unbridgeable budget shortfall for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority that will straitjacket an already handicapped agency and imperil dozens of planned necessary capital improvement projects for the city’s aging subway system.

Here is what it gains Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, who announced her unilateral decision about the suspension last week: perhaps slightly better chances for New York Democrats in a couple of fall congressional races. According to reporting, these are especially important to the House minority leader, Hakeem Jeffries, who may still be somewhat embarrassed about his state’s performance in the 2022 elections, when surprise victories for several New York Republicans kept the House of Representatives out of Democratic control. It has also handed the governor several news conferences so bungled, they have made reversing a policy unpopular with voters into a genuine political humiliation.

In her announcement, Hochul emphasized the precarious state of the city’s recovery from the Covid pandemic, but car traffic into Manhattan has returned to prepandemic levels, as has New York City employment, which is now higher than ever before; New York City tourism metrics are barely behind prepandemic records and are expected to surpass them in 2025. Tax coffers have rebounded, too, to the extent that the city canceled a raft of planned budget cuts. The one obvious measure by which the city has not mounted a full pandemic comeback is subway ridership — a measure that congestion pricing would have helped and pausing it is likely to hurt.

In announcing the pause, she also expressed concern for the financial burden the $15 surcharge would impose on working New Yorkers, though the city’s working class was functionally exempted from the toll by a rebate system for those with an annual income of $60,000 or less. In a follow-up news conference, she emphasized a few conversations she’d had with diner owners, who she said expressed anxiety that their business would suffer when commuters wouldn’t drive to their establishments. But each of them was within spitting distance of Grand Central, where an overwhelming share of foot traffic — and commercial value — comes from commuters using mass transit.

Robinson Meyer, a contributing Times Opinion writer, wrote for Heatmap that delaying the plan will be “a generational setback for climate policy in the United States,” adding that “it is one of the worst climate policy decisions made by a Democrat at any level of government in recent memory.” He called it worse than the Mountain Valley Pipeline and the Willow oil project in Alaska — not just because of the direct effect on emissions, though that would be large, but what a pause means for the morale and momentum of any American movement toward a next-generation, climate-conscious urbanism.

[mariacallous]

During the last two decades, it has become commonplace for presidential candidates on both sides of the aisle to pledge to not raise taxes on at least some income groups. For example, in 2008 John McCain promised to not raise taxes on any income group, whereas Barack Obama pledged to not raise taxes on individuals earning less than $200,000 and on families earning less than $250,000. Likewise, in 2016 Donald Trump pledged to reduce taxes for the middle class, and Hillary Clinton pledged to not raise taxes on individuals earning less than $250,000. Most recently, in 2020 Joe Biden pledged to not raise taxes on anyone making less than $400,000, and in 2024 Kamala Harris re-affirmed this commitment.

These pledges are clearly made to insulate “middle-class” households (and middle-class voters!) from increases in their taxes. Therefore, they are also a statement about who should bear the burden of financing federal spending and how progressive the tax system should be.

But these pledges also complicate the development and implementation of good tax policy. By design, they place a large share of the tax base “off the table,” making it harder to raise revenue. Less obviously, these pledges also make it harder to raise revenue from higher-income households because they effectively exempt a portion of higher-income households’ income from taxation. This makes it harder to increase the progressivity of the income tax. Finally, these pledges can make it politically or practically difficult to enact and implement new tax or spending programs. This has caused some awkward episodes in the past and could make it difficult to negotiate a future deficit reduction deal by taking certain policies off the table before the discussion even starts.

To illustrate the revenue and distributional effects of these types of pledges, we estimate the effect of increasing statutory income tax rates by 10% under different income exemption thresholds using the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center microsimulation model. We consider the effect of five salient thresholds: $0; $100,000; $250,000; $400,000; and $1,000,000. In this exercise, the function of the pledge is to exempt taxpayers under the threshold from the tax increase. Specifically, we assume the threshold applies to married couples filing jointly based on adjusted gross income. The threshold for non-married filers is set to be half as large as that of married filers.

We apply the 10% tax increase to all individual income tax rates, including those that apply to capital gains and under the Alternative Minimum Tax (but not other taxes, like payroll taxes or the net investment income tax). In each simulation that we estimate, the change in tax rate for any group over the threshold is exactly the same—a 10% increase in all rates over the threshold. In other words, the only differences in revenues and tax rates across simulations arise from the change in thresholds. (To focus on the main points of this paper, we are assuming there is no change in behavior under alternative tax regimes.)

We assume these tax rate increases affect the 2025 tax year. We choose this base to ensure that the lower individual tax rates provisioned by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act are still in effect. The TPC microsimulation model predicts that total tax receipts will be $4.8 trillion in 2025 and that the average federal tax rate paid by Americans will be 19.8%.

Note that our policy example, even without a threshold, would increase tax rates more in absolute terms for higher-income taxpayers because it is a proportional increase in tax rates within a system already characterized by steeply progressive tax rates. For example, under this policy the lowest bracket tax rate rises by just one percentage point (from 10 to 11%), whereas the rate facing those in the top bracket increases by 3.7 percentage points (from 37 to 40.7%).

[beeseverywhen]

I wish they'd stop pledging not to increase tax and start pledging to make tax fairer

Tories challenge Labour to join them in ruling out council tax reform, in what they call 'family home tax guarantee'

Good morning. The government raises more than £1 trillion in tax every year, and more than half of that money comes from just three sources: income tax, national insurance and VAT. The Conservatives and Labour have both promised not to raise the rates of any of those taxes (although, with VAT, Labour was initially reluctant to give a cast-iron pledge, implying Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, wanted, at least a bit, to keep her options open.)

But there are plenty of other taxes available to a chancellor, and it seems the Conservative party now plans to spend the remaining four weeks until polling day challenging Labour to rule out raising any of them. Today Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, has written an article for the Daily Telegraph in which he promises that his party won’t increase stamp duty, that it will continue to ensure main homes are exempt from capital gains tax, and that it won’t hold a council tax revaluation, or increase the number of council tax bands. The final promise is particular significant because the current council tax arrangements for England are egregiously unfair, and mainstream economists argue (eg here and here) the case for reform is overwhelming.

Hunt says: That is why today we are announcing the family home tax guarantee.

This guarantee is a commitment not to increase the number of council tax bands, undertake an expensive council tax revaluation, or cut council tax discounts. It is a commitment to maintain private residence relief, so that people’s main homes are protected from capital gains tax. And it is a commitment not to increase the rate or level of stamp duty. I am throwing down the gauntlet to Rachel Reeves and Sir Keir Starmer to join us in this pledge. This isn’t party political point-scoring. I actually want to see the Labour party say they will put families first and higher taxes second.

When politicians declare they are not engaged in “party political point-scoring”, that’s often a clear sign that are and Hunt’s article suggests that the Tories have decided that tax is the strongest card they’ve got to play in the campaign. Normally parties are reluctant to rule out too many tax increases in advance of an election because they want to retain room for manoeuvre if economic circumstances get tricky. But if a party is expecting to lose, it feels less constrained when it comes to making promises.

So far Hunt does not seem to have succeeded in tempting Labour to play his game. Last night a party spokersperson just said:

We will not be raising taxes on working people … These are more desperate claims from Rishi Sunak who lied to the British people before and is lying to them again.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies is in despair at the honesty of the debate about taxation during the campaign. It says both main parties are refusing to be honest about the need for tax rises or deep spending cuts after polling day.

There's 0 rational to not reform council tax. In a 1 bed council flat I pay more than I would for a band H property in Wandsworth

Couple of pictures of properties that pay less council tax than me in my rented council flat. It's cool. I'm not bitter. This is fine

[thot-toddy]

The video describes the appeal of Mauritius as a location for offshore banking, highlighting its stable regulatory environment. It specifically emphasizes the advantages of choosing First Security Bank Solutions for such services. The process of opening an offshore account with this bank involves consultation, documentation submission, and account form completion.

The required documentation includes a passport, proof of address, employment or business evidence, and financial references. Clients can choose from different account types based on their needs, currency preferences, and investment goals. Deposits and withdrawals can be made through various methods such as wire transfer, check, online banking, ATM, or check.

First Security Bank Solutions provides secure online banking for convenient account management, including multicurrency accounts that allow transactions in multiple currencies. The bank also offers tailored investment solutions to help clients achieve their financial objectives. Wealth management services are available, providing personalized advice and strategies for high-net-worth individuals.

Strict confidentiality and data protection measures are in place to safeguard clients' financial information. Dedicated customer support is accessible 24/7 to assist clients with queries and guidance. The text also mentions Mauritius's tax benefits, including exemptions from wealth tax and capital gains tax.

The closing statement encourages interested individuals to contact First Security Bank Solutions for more information about opening an offshore bank account in Mauritius and to receive expert guidance. Overall, the text portrays Mauritius and First Security Bank Solutions as an attractive and secure option for offshore banking with a range of services tailored to meet clients' financial needs.

[swarajfinpro236]

Maximizing Savings through Income Tax Planning Services in Jabalpur with Swaraj FinPro

Residing in Jabalpur and seeking avenues to reduce tax burdens? Implementing income tax planning strategies can serve as an investment avenue to retain a larger portion of your earnings.

Through astute financial management and capitalizing on available tax-saving avenues, you can curtail tax obligations and bolster your savings.

Here's a breakdown of how you can minimize taxes through Income Tax lanning Services in Jabalpur:

Familiarizing Yourself with Tax Deductions and Exemptions: The Indian government offers various deductions and exemptions to individuals aiming to mitigate tax liabilities. By scrutinizing your expenditures and investments, you can pinpoint opportunities to claim deductions under sections such as 80C, 80D, 80CCD, etc., of the Income Tax Act. Contributions to schemes like PPF, EPF, life insurance premiums, home loan EMIs, and health insurance premiums are instrumental in reducing taxable income.

Harnessing Tax-Saving Investments: Allocating funds to tax-saving instruments like Equity Linked Savings Schemes (ELSS), National Pension System (NPS), and tax-saving fixed deposits not only aids in tax reduction but also fosters wealth accumulation over time. These investments offer the dual advantage of tax savings and potential returns, making them an appealing choice for individuals aiming to optimize tax planning.

Retirement Planning: Planning for retirement can yield significant tax benefits. Options such as the National Pension Scheme (NPS) and Public Provident Fund (PPF) facilitate systematic tax deductions, offering a tax-efficient approach to building a retirement corpus. These avenues ensure financial security during retirement and provide a steady income stream.

Seeking Guidance from Financial Advisors: Consulting with proficient Financial Advisors in Jabalpur is pivotal in formulating a comprehensive tax-saving strategy tailored to your unique financial scenario. Given the challenge individuals face in allocating a portion of their income to taxes, the Indian government provides diverse options to enhance income retention, secure retirement, and offer flexibility and diversification.

ELSS scheme : ELSS scheme is a great tax saving option under section 80c, allowed by Income tax department aims to save on tax and build wealth in longer term. A very important feature of the ELSS i.e. Equity Linked Saving Scheme is it has lowest lock in period for say only 3 years. If invested lumpsum or one time, it will be available to withdraw just after completing 36 months means complete 3 years. Another good point is it gives much better return than other tax saving options. Third very important aspect of ELSS fund is it's tax efficiency. It attracts Long Term Capital Gains Tax after completing 3 years tenure.

In such equity oriented schemes, Long Term Capital Gains rules are different from debt funds. In such cases, profit upto Rs 100000 is tax free and above Rs 1 Lakh profit, only 10% tax is applicable.

These all features make it a favourable case to save tax through ELSS.

In summary, income tax planning presents abundant opportunities for individuals to optimize tax liabilities and bolster savings. By staying abreast of tax-saving provisions, making prudent investment decisions, and soliciting professional advice, you can efficiently manage taxes while safeguarding your financial future.

Embark on your income tax planning journey today to pave the path for a financially secure tomorrow.

For personalized assistance and expert advice on income tax planning, don't hesitate to reach out to Swaraj Finpro, a premier financial services provider in Jabalpur.