Something in the $ 9000 +$ 1000 Tax Story probably goes over my head!
Do I understand it correctly that Dr X invested $50000 and had to pay $ 9000 + $1000 in Taxes 7 weeks later without having made any gains on his $ 50000 so that his net investment was worth € 40000?
That works out to be a 148,6 % annual loss if his investment would stay at a value of $50000 for the following 45 weeks. In order to break even after a year his investment should generate $ 10000 net after the taxes Dr. X would have to pay on the new gains.
At a 42,1% average tax rate his earnings on the $ 50000 will have to generate a $ 17272 yie1d . . .or 35,54 % . . . .in a year from the date he invested the $ 50000.. . .and he would not have even gained a Penny!
Is that what the story implies?
Who is to blame for such strange taxation laws?
Could Obama have prevented this from happening if he knew about this?
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
