query: Tips for insurance coverage for one-man-teams

positive: While the OP disses the health insurance coverage offered through his wife's employer as a complete rip-off, one advantage of such coverage is that, if set up right (by the employer), the premiums can be paid for through pre-tax dollars instead of post-tax dollars. On the other hand,  Health insurance premiums cannot be deducted on Schedule C by self-employed persons. So the self-employed person has to pay both the employer's share as well as the employee's share of Social Security and Medicare taxes on that money. Health insurance premiums can be deducted on Line 29 of Form 1040 but only for those months during which the Schedule C filer is neither  covered nor eligible to be covered by a subsidized health insurance plan maintained by an employer of the self-employed person (whose self-employment might be a sideline) or the self-employed person's spouse. In other words, just having the plan coverage available through the wife's employment, even though one disdains taking it, is sufficient to make a Line 29 deduction impermissible.  So, AGI is increased. Health insurance premiums can be deducted on Schedule A but only to the extent that they (together with other medical costs) exceed 10% of AGI. For many people in good health, this means no deduction there either. Thus, when comparing the premiums of health insurance policies, one should pay some attention to the tax issues too. Health insurance  through a spouse's employment might not be that bad a deal after all.

positive: "Like most forms of insurance, health insurance is regulated at the state level. So what is available to you will depend greatly upon which state you live in. You can probably find a list of insurance companies from your state's official website. Many states now provide ""insurance of last resort"" for individuals who can't get insurance through private insurance companies. You can try looking into professional and trade associations. Some offer group insurance plans comparable with COBRA coverage, meaning you'd get a group discount and benefits but without the benefit of an employer paying 30-80% of your premiums. As a software developer you may qualify for membership in the IEEE or ACM, which both offer several forms of insurance to members. The ASP also offers insurance, though they don't provide much information about it on the public portions of their website. These organization offer other benefits besides insurance so you may want to take that in to consideration. The National Federation of Independent Business also offers insurance to members. You may find other associations in your specific area. Credit Unions, Coops and the local chamber of commerce are all possible avenues of finding lower cost insurance options. If you are religious there are even some faith based non-insurance organizations that provide medical cost sharing services. They depend upon the generosity and sense of fairness and obligation of their members to share the burden of medical expenses so their definitely not for everyone."

negative: Sales talent is very rare. The sales process for B2B is not like your door to door vacuum cleaner sales man. Usually, procurement puts out a sale for bid. Sales teams have to compete against one another for the business. Usually, its a 4-5 vendors competing for one spot. One team eats, the rest go hungry.

negative: "What you need will depend on a number of factors that aren't clear from the question. This coverage is simply called ""Vacant home insurance"", but not all companies are willing to offer this coverage. Unfortunately, in New York, insurers can also legally drop your standard homeowners' coverage if they become aware that your property has become vacant for 30 days or more. The Insurer's Concerns Typically, a ""standard"" homeowners policy will have an exclusion clause for vacant homes. The insurance company's concern is that without someone in the home, they will be at risk for break-ins, squatters and vandalism. If you've ever seen ""Flip Men"" on Spike, you'll know this is a serious concern (great show, by the way). They will use a risk model to calculate an estimated risk for the property (this is why a seasonal vacation home in a sparsely-populated area is often less of a concern than a family home in an urban area). If they estimate the risk to be low, some insurance companies will allow to you buy back that exclusion so that vacant properties are covered. In your case, they have probably decided that either: Your Options First, you need to find a company that is comfortable with taking on the extra risk of a vacant home. This will vary quite a bit by location, but the main ones are Farmer's (they use the Foremost brand name in New York) and Castle Rock. There are lots of insurance agencies that also advertise these products, but most of them are middlemen and use one of these two companies to actually write the coverage. Additionally, since this is a specialty policy, make sure you understand all of the details of the policy, and how they vary from a regular policy including: How to Reduce your Premium costs These are general tips from the Murray Group's website (an independent broker in NY) on how to lower the additional cost of vacant coverage: This may sound expensive, but these steps will all reduce the risk of something really bad happening when you're not there. Additionally, do you know anyone you completely trust (relative, unemployed friend) that might want to live in your old house rent-free for a while? This could work out for you if they are willing to keep the place 100% clean around the clock so that you can show the house at any time. If you have additional/specific questions, you should be able to find an independent insurance broker in your area that would be willing to advise you on your specific situation for a flat fee. Best of luck with getting the home covered and sold quickly!"

negative: The insurance company is must assume you do have a preexisting condition you are unaware of.  The reason for that is that Affordable Care Act precludes the Insurance company from denying coverage of them if you do.  Insurance companies are businesses.  They are in business to make money(unless you have a nonprofit insurer).  They can not do that if you can buy insurance only when you need for them to pay out.  So even though you may not have a preexisting condition, they are precluded from requiring an examination that would detect the most expensive preexisting conditions (hidden cancers, neurological, autoimmune disorders).  So the companies must do what takes business sense and either deny you coverage or charge a rate that covers the risk they would be forced to take.   In your question on travel there was a response that suggested you get international health insurance instead of travel health insurance that would be considered credible coverage.  You are trying to save money which on a personal level is a good idea.  However that is against the societal and business need that you maintain health coverage during your healthy times to cover the costs of those who need expensive treatment.  So you will be monetarily penalized should you choose to reenter the society of insured people.  Once you have paid the higher rate for up to 18 months you should be able to get a better policy for people who have had continuous coverage.  Alternately you may be lucky enough to start working for a company that provides health insurance with out requiring continuous coverage.

negative: I bought Health Insurance for myself after a period without it, and my premiums were not terrible. I was a 27 year old man, living in California, no preexisting conditions, and I paid approximately 90$ a month. This was for a standard Health Insurance plan.  However, when I moved back to NY a little while later, insurance companies wanted almost $500/month for catastrophic coverage.  So, from personal experience, my answer is that price varies widely by state. Different states have different regulations as to what Health Insurance Companies need to cover and at what price. In NY, Health Insurance companies can't charge different rates according to age. Also, in NY, there is a price spiral, where the price is so high, few people buy it, so they have to raise the price because not enough well people are in the pool, so fewer people buy it.... To test it out, go to an online insurance broker, like ehealthinsurace, and put in your proposed information, including that you haven't been covered for a period. This way you will know.

negative: >  it allows for teachers to teach in a certain way that is better for their demographic.  It doesn't teach the teachers spanish, or give the school the higher funding needed for special needs kids.  There are schools for secondary english speakers and special needs kids.  But with a voucher system, that doesn't get designated, it gets discovered after kids start failing, because they can't understand the teacher.  And even after it is discovered, there's no fix for it because the vouchers have soaked up all the funding.  > You don't get either of those at schools where there is almost no poverty.   Crazy officer Bob is at the private school down the road, behind a white picket steel tipped fence, 500 cameras and a 20 man team of idiots just like him.   I've been in jails that weren't as oppressive as that really nice school.

negative: Family Life Insurance Adviser Sydney is one of the biggest names in providing advice for family life insurance in Sydney. We have an expert team of advisers who will help you to choose best and suitable family life insurance plan as per your needs and requirements.

negative: In some states there are significantly higher automobile insurance costs and higher coverage requirements for vehicles that have a lien on them.  I suspect this is not your scenario, or you probably would not be considering holding the loan open.  But it is something to consider. If you live in a state where insurance coverage and costs depend on a clear title, I would certainly recommend closing the loan as soon as possible.

negative: If the funds are deposited into a noninterest-bearing account, they will be covered by FDIC insurance regardless of the amount (However, this extended coverage may not be valid after Dec. 31, 2012): On November 9, 2010, the FDIC issued a Final Rule implementing section 343 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that provides for unlimited insurance coverage of noninterest-bearing transaction accounts. Beginning December 31, 2010, through December 31, 2012, all noninterest-bearing transaction accounts are fully insured, regardless of the balance of the account, at all FDIC-insured institutions.   (Source: http://www.fdic.gov/deposit/deposits/changes.html)

negative: Aussie Noise Control are the nations leaders in all thing acoustic and noise control. Whether you have been fined for noise pollution, or if you need help ensuring your meeting rooms are soundproof, Aussie Noise Control can help. Our team of sound architects can help find the right solution for your acoustic needs. We've helped hundreds of Australian businesses from one man teams, to the nations largest banks, handle their noise compliance issues, and we can help you too. Call us today to find out more.

negative: As a 24 year old, single,your needs for insurance are minimal. Why you might consider it are for these reasons. You are young, so it will be cheaper than buying say at 34. Insurance is always on sale. Two, there is no guarantee that your health will always be good, you may have to pay additional premiums later or even be refused coverage. Ask me, I pay 70% more than others my age for the same coverage.  Three, insurance ownership with equity values can grow tax free as you accumulate the monies. Consider it like a bond portfolio offering guaranteed returns on portions of the growth, and a long term return of 5.5% or slighly more. Four, stating sooner versus later means more cash buildup. Just like being in a pension will generate more cash for you by age 65, than if you had started at age 34. Insurance is only one tool in getting a good start. It is not a panacea.

negative: With the crazy amount of fee overhead in Instacart, I am not sure if teaming up would Aldi would make sense for them. Maybe it will be different for Aldi but for a Costco order, the items were %10-15 more expensive, there was a processing fee, delivery fee and they expected you to tip the shopper. That's just crazy so I would never use Instacart again unless they provided a large discount again similar to one they do for first time customers.

negative: It depends on the group of Americans that you are focused on.  If you are Mitt Romney or part of his NASCAR Team Owning pals, austerity rocks!  However, if you are Joe Shit the Rag Man wearing a NASCAR T-Shirt. stimulus is sweet.

negative: Why should healthy people be required to subsidize the sick?  A single, healthy, working young man or woman needs catastrophic coverage only.  They don't need: pregnancy, mental health, substance abuse, child coverage, mammograms, and all the other bullshit that Obamacare policies mandate, which needlessly increase the cost.  >That's Republicans for you. They obstruct and sabotage the system and then blame everyone else when the system doesn't work.  Why are you pointing blame on Republicans?  The death spiral started while Obama was in office.

negative: The issue is, universal healthcare is not perfect.  No system is, since healthcare costs are economically infinite, so every system draws the line somewhere.       In universal healthcare, coverage lines are determined by central authorities on what is most economically beneficial to ALL of society.       In the US, coverage lines are drawn up by for profit insurers.  It's a complete clusterf*ck.   Why any American would prefer a barely regulated for profit insurer to make decisions on whether their critical healthcare is covered, knowing that they personally profit should they decline coverage is incredible.       I personally lean libertarian, but not for areas like schools and healthcare.  They are far better served universally supported by government taxes.

negative: It boils down to this:  Who, or what, would you want to take care of financially if you were to die tomorrow? That's why you need life insurance. I'm pretty sure that your creditors would line up to receive payment from the life insurance check, so that's part of figuring out how much coverage you should have. The life insurance premiums are another monthly payment, of course, but every day there is a small chance that you could die.  Insuring against that small chance vs. paying down your debt faster is a decision that needs to be made, and you (or your brother) are the ones that will make it.

negative: I worked for a firm where the trainer ruined the sales team and was eventually fired. Dude was an ex Tony Robbins con man that used Tony's name to come in and be a cheerleader. I'm sure some are good but do your research.

negative: You only need umbrella policy for large amounts of liability protection (I think they usually start with $1M). So if you don't have and don't expect to have assets at such a high value - why would you need the insurance? Your homeowners/renters/car/travel insurance should be enough, and you still need to have those for umbrella since its on top of the existing coverage, not instead. Many people just don't have enough assets to justify such a high coverage.

negative: First off, you should contact your health plan administrator as soon as possible.  Different plans may interact differently with Medicare; any advice we could provide here would be tentative at best.  Some of the issues you may face: A person with both Medicare and a QHP would potentially have primary coverage from 2 sources: Medicare and the QHP. No federal law addresses this situation. Under state insurance law an individual generally cannot collect full benefits from each of 2 policies that together pay more than an insured event costs. State law usually specifies how insurance companies will coordinate health benefits when a person has primary coverage from more than one source. In that situation, insurance companies determine which coverage is primary and which is secondary. It’s important to understand that a QHP is not structured to pay secondary benefits, nor are the premiums calculated or adjusted for secondary payment. In addition, a person with Medicare would no longer receive any premium assistance or subsidies under the federal law. While previous federal law makes it illegal for insurance companies to knowingly sell coverage that duplicates Medicare’s coverage when someone is entitled to or enrolled in Medicare Part A or Part B, there has been no guidance on the issue of someone who already has individual health insurance and then also enrolls in Medicare. We and other consumer organizations have asked state and federal officials for clarification on this complicated situation. As such, it likely is up to the plan how they choose to pay - and I wouldn't expect them to pay much if they think they can avoid it.  You may also want to talk to someone at your local Medicare branch office - they may know more about your state specifically; or someone in your state's department of health/human services, or whomever administers the Exchanges (if it's not federal) in your state. Secondly, as far as enrolling for Part B, you should be aware that if she opts not to enroll in Part B at this time, if your wife later chooses to enroll before she turns 65 she will be required to pay a penalty of 10% per 12 month period she was not enrolled.  This will revert to 0 when she turns 65 and is then eligible under normal rules, but it will apply every year until then.  If she's enrolling during the normal General Enrollment period (Jan-March) then if she fails to enroll then she'll be required to pay that penalty if she later enrolls; if this is a Special Enrollment Period and extends beyond March, she may have the choice of enrolling next year without penalty.

negative: Some countries don't have robust life insurance markets.  Some countries have horrible travel fatality statistics.  Some countries don't have very good liability law enforcement.   Is $2 on top of a train ticket in the US to send your family a $20,000 payment if you die on the train worth it, probably not.  The fatality rate is pretty low here, lots of people have their own life insurance, and the US justice system carries a big liability stick. If you're moving around on trains a lot in other countries where the fatality rate is much higher, you can't buy life insurance on your own, and the legal system doesn't punish negligent operators it might be meaningful, especially for frequent travelers who have dependents. Is buying this coverage a reasonable and cost effective way to insure a person's life, no, clearly not.  You're buying a policy to insure your life against being mauled by tiger in New York on a Tuesday, when you've never seen a tiger and don't live in New York.  Obviously, if you want life insurance you would not buy coverage this narrow. Personally, I think this is really akin to an impulse buy candy bar at a checkout line of a market.  They're dangling this in front of you for an amount of money that's insignificant because some people will pick it up without thinking about it.  They're tickling your fear of death just enough to get a dollar from you, but not enough to keep you off the train.  And obviously the math works out for the insurer or it would not be offered. Separately, regarding probability, it's not about an incident occurring in a train, it's an incident occurring in this particular train on this particular day/time.  If there's a 1 in 10,000 chance of dying on a train in a year the chance of dying on a particular train on a particular day is likely to be one in billions or more.  This really isn't about whether or not this coverage is valuable given the risk, it's about whether or not they can get you to impulsively spend a dollar.

negative: Oh man.  There was a nice place that kept the bar open late.  Out of college we'd go there later in the evening (after ten) now and then.  The bar tenders actually learned who we were (they weren't a busy place that late) and would rarely charge us for more than a few drinks.  We'd order small plates and stuff too.  I'd try to tip at least based on what stuff SHOULD have cost so the tip was almost always bigger than the bill.  Loved that place.

negative: etags.com Legit eTags, a web service provider of vehicle registration renewals, also writes about tips for potential, new, and experienced vehicle owners for topics that range from tips on maintenance to insurance to buying a car and how to get the most and have the best experience.

negative: "Depending on what you mean by ""High-quality health insurance,"" it is part of the problem.  If you don't care about price (because you are using your insurance pays for everything), providers will charge as much as your insurance will pay.  Health insurance in this country turned into a poorly built health service subscription business because the government made it cheaper for your employer to provide you wages in the form of health insurance than in money.  There are new health service business models popping up that are built as a health service subscription.  Providers charge a flat monthly rate and you get to use as much as you want.  The doctors and other service providers don't have to deal with insurance, and get to keep everything.  Unfortunately, they are illegal in some states.  Get the government out of the health services sector.  End the subsidy for health insurance paid by employers, or provide the same subsidy for health services purchased by individuals.  Allow any group to negotiate group coverage.  Why is your health insurance tied to your job?  Allow communities, extended families, or any organization to purchase group coverage.  Stop requiring purchasing insurance services you don't want and will never use, like a gay men being required to purchase maternity insurance."

negative: There are several aspects to this but at a high level it boils down to A lot goes in to insurance rating and risk projecting.  You can't adjust a single variable and expect a proportional change in your premium, 7,000 miles per year just won't be 70% of the cost of 10,000 miles per year, because there are a lot of other things in play as well.  To further address premium adjustments.  Consider this: Even if your liability coverage did scale with perfect correlation to your mileage (using the same 70% from above, 7,000 miles per year versus 10,000 miles per year) then your premium composition is: $200 to $170 is 15%.  No change will have a direct linear correlation to your total premium because there are different component pieces of the total premium.  Fixed costs may be built in to the amounts for other component pieces of the premium, for example maybe no line of coverage ever has a cost below $X. Obviously these numbers are all made up Additionally, and also less considered is the fact that your liability also scales because of a lot of factors that have nothing to do with you.  It might be the other cars that are on the road, it might be that more densely populated areas have more fender benders.  For example if you live in Beverly Hills you have a much higher likelihood of accidentally bumping a $70-$80-$90-$100k+ car than you do in say, rural Wisconsin.  If your zip code is gentrifying and everyone starts buying Mercedes, your liability coverage increases.   You can not adjust one single variable and decide that you are lower risk than all insurers think you are.  If you shop this coverage and all insurers are within a nominal margin of pricing for the same coverage levels, there isn't much to argue with; you are simply riskier than you think you are and the variable you are focused on is not as meaningful as you think it is.

negative: If you too want to avoid losing your money again in the stock loss recovery scams that have been going on then there are a few tips to keep in mind. Be diligent about researching the company thoroughly online, know about its owners, teams and what others have said about it. This can help you be safe from fraudulent firms.

negative: "A credit default swap is like insurance on a bond, but it isn't. The cash flows just move similarly. They didn't buy insurance on anything. They just bought a contract.   A put ""is like"" downside insurance on a stock. But of course you can still buy them. Investing in TIPS ""is like"" buying inflation insurance, but it isn't."

negative: "For a car, you're typically compelled to carry insurance, and picking up ""comprehensive"" coverage (fire, theft, act of god) is normally cheap. If the car was purchased with a loan, the lender will stipulate that you carry comprehensive and collision insurance.  People buy insurance because it limits their liability. In the grand scheme of things, pricing in a fixed rate of loss every year (insurance premium + potential deductible) is appealing to many versus having to cover a catastrophic loss when your car is wrecked or stolen."

negative: Whole life in most instances is a very bad plan. It's marketed as a life insurance policy wrapped in an investment but it does neither very well. The hidden caveat of whole life is that the investment goes away if you die.  Say for example I have a $100,000 whole life insurance policy and over the years I have paid in enough to have a $15,000 cash value on the policy. If I die, my family gets $100,000 and the cash value is lost. With term life you can get a substantially higher amount of coverage for a smaller payment. If you invest the difference you end up not only with better coverage, but a better cash value from the difference if you don't die (which is what we all hope for anyways). As JackiYo said, your insurance should be designed around replacing lost income/value.  You should get 10x your annual income in term life insurance.

negative: Get the good inspection team by Assured Building Inspections, it is a necessary process to everyone house owner before buying the house. Our excellent team recognizes the building's lacks and resolve that problem. We are specialising the most issues in Pre Purchase Property Inspections – building & pest inspections. Our impartial reviews provide our customers with the confidence and peace of thoughts they want to do nicely informed, well taken into consideration decisions about any belongings building issues. We  associate the most building inspection team for the better result, it is certainly one of Australia's main Fully Licensed and Insured building and wood pest inspection businesses offering expert constructing consultancy offerings, specialising in pre-purchase  inspections.

negative: Or it could be that Uber's model is not sustainable and preys on the ignorance and precarious situation of people. That the driver burn rate is a good indication of an unreasonable pay. And we're not even touching the fact that drivers are pretty uninsured (yes I know about the 1 million coverage Uber provides. It's a supplementary coverage, meaning you first have to submit claim through your own insurance first).

negative: "I was in the health insurance game for 10 years and never heard of this until the Affordable Care Act came about.  To my knowledge, there is no rule or regulation prohibiting it, however trying to get an insurer underwrite that risk is extremely unlikely. It's the same reason why you don't see AAA offering health insurance. There isn't a contractual relationship between the church and their constituents, so no underwriter worth their salt would put a reasonable price on that risk.   Members can easily come and go, and since insurance through your employer is still the dominant distribution channel for health insurance, it would be seen as an adverse risk, meaning that people who couldn't get it through ""normal"" channels must be getting it through the church, which it would then be assumed that this person applying for coverage is an ""adverse risk"" or someone who is abnormally unhealthy.  There are faith-based healthcare reimbursement programs that are NOT health insurance and do not satisfy the ACA required minimum coverages. From what I've seen and read, it's basically members of the religion or faith that pay money into the system (like paying an insurance premium) and they elect a board that basically evaluates each claim and pays or doesn't pay it, either partially or in full. While this is a nice way to get your bills paid, odds are it won't cover your $300,000 cancer treatment or your $50,000 cesarean section birth."

negative: "The following is from Wikipedia - Term life insurance (with very minor editing) Because term life insurance is a pure   death benefit, its primary use is to   provide coverage of financial   responsibilities, for the insured.   Such responsibilities may include, but   are not limited to, consumer debt,   dependent care, college education for   dependents, funeral costs, and   mortgages. Term life insurance is   generally chosen in favor of permanent   life insurance because it is usually   much less expensive (depending on the   length of the term). Many financial   advisors or other experts commonly   recommend term life insurance as a   means to cover potential expenses   until such time that there are   sufficient funds available from   savings to protect those whom the   insurance coverage was intended to   protect. For example, an individual   might choose to obtain a policy whose   term expires near his or her   retirement age based on the premise   that, by the time the individual   retires, he or she would have amassed   sufficient funds in retirement savings   to provide financial security for   their dependents. This suggests the questions ""why do you have this policy?"" also ""how many term life policies do you need?"" or ""how much insurance do you need?"" Clearly you will be better off investing the premiums in the market.  Your beneficiaries may be better off either way (depends when you die and to a lesser extent on market performance). If you are not able to retire now but expect to be able to later, you should strongly consider having sufficient insurance to provide income replacement for your spouse.  This is a fairly common why."

negative: "It depends.  ""High net worth individuals"" is very subjective.   Lets say a person is worth 1.5 million.  High, but not super high.  For one, they should have an umbrella policy.  Until your net worth is above 300K, you really don't need an umbrella policy.  They should insure their home and cars, but should probably have high deductibles.  Health insurance is a must as a bad illness can wipe them out.  They should have long term care insurance when they reach age 60.   Now lets say a person is worth about 10 million.  They might be able to self insure basic transportation and probably don't need long term care insurance.  However, they may choose to carry the full coverage car insurance, or other lines, because it is a value.   In conclusion insurance needs change based on a person's net worth and income.  It is very hard to make a blanket statement without details of the makeup of one's net worth and how they earn their income. Having said all of that, a high net worth (HNW) individual may never be able to drop certain coverage.  Lets say that a HNW owns a 50K condo, 1K square foot condo.  Given that the outside structure is covered by the HOA the insurance on such a unit only covers the contents and liability.  The contents could easily be floated by the HNW individual, but not the liability.  It is probably a requirement, on their umbrella policy, that they carry the maximum liability protection on their vehicles and properties.  In the case above they would carry a policy for the purposes of liability protection. This could also be true of their dependents.  Say for example, their adult child receives some financial assistance from their parents (like college being paid for).  The HNW individuals should have their child cover the maximum liability on the auto policy. According to this site:  A person with a net worth of 1.5 million would be in the 90-95 percentile, a person with 10 million in the 99th. This article does a decent job of describing what constitutes a HNW person or household.  Namely 1 million in investable assets, which is of course a bit different then net worth."


query: Why are we taxed on revenue and companies on profit?

positive: "I pay taxes on revenue.  You do have the ability to deduct expenses, though it's not as comprehensive as what companies can do: These figures apply to everybody, so those that earn more get taxed more on thee additional income in each bracket (meaning the first $100,000 of taxable income is taxed the same for everybody at one rate, the next $100,000 at a different rate, etc.) So you do get to deduct personal expenses and get taxed on ""profit"" - but since the vast majority of people don't keep detailed records of what they spend, it's much simpler just to use blanket deduction amounts for everyone. Companies have much more detailed systems in place to track and categorize expenses, so it's easier to just tax on net profit. Plus, the corporate tax rate is much higher than the average individual tax rate - would you trade more deductions for a higher tax rate?"

negative: "The bill proposed to ""Under existing law, employers may take tax deductions for the costs associated with moving jobs out of the country. The proposed legislation would have eliminated that, and used the resulting new revenue to fund a 20 percent tax credit for the costs companies run up ""insourcing"" labor back into the U.S."" From http://abcnews.go.com/m/blogEntry?id=16816660 as found by beermethestrength. I will explain this in an example below.   Lets use allen edmonds. I manufacture shoes and sell them in the US. The facts we will assume is Revenue or sales is $100. Manufacturing cost is $50. Tax rate is 10%. Therefore, Profit before tax is $100 -$50 = $50. Tax is $5. Net profit is $45.  However, suppose offshoring to Canada saves money. They say please and thank you at every opportunity and the positive work environment allows them to work faster. Correspondingly to make the same number of shoes our costs has decreased because we pay less for labour. The manufacturing cost decreases to $30. However, we incur costs to move such as severance payments to layoff contracted employees. (I promise to hire you and pay $1 a year for 2 years. I fire you at the end of the first year. To be fair, I pay you $1) However, it can be any legitimate expense under the sun. In this case we suppose this moving cost is $10. Revenue or sales is $100. Manufacturing cost is $30. Moving cost is $10. Tax rate is 10%. Profit before tax is $100 -$40 = $60. Tax is $6. Net profit is $54. Yay more jobs for Canadians.   However, the legislation would have changed this. It would have denied that moving expense if you were moving out of the country. Therefore, we cannot consider $10 worth of expenses for tax purposes. Therefore Revenue or sales is $100. Manufacturing cost is $30. Tax rate is 10%. Profit before tax for tax purposes is $100 - $30 = $70. Tax is $7. Net profit for tax purposes is $63. However, my accounting/net/real profit is $53. I must deduct the $10 associated with moving. The difference between the two scenarios is $1. In general our net profit changes by our moving cost * our tax rate.  There is no tax break associated with moving. In Canadian tax, any business expense in general can be deducted as long as it is legitimate and not specifically denied. I am uncertain but would assume US tax law is similar enough. Moving expenses in general are legitimate and not specifically denied and therefore can be deducted.  Offshoring and onshoring are seen as legitimate business activities as in general companies do things to increase profit. (forget about patriotism for the moment).  The bill was to make offshoring more expensive and therefore fewer companies would find offshoring profitable. However, republicans defeated this bill in congress. Most likely the house  For completeness let us examine what would happen when we onshore (bring jobs from canada to us :( ). In our example, silly unions demand unrealistically high wages and increase our cost of manufacturing to $50 again. We decide to move back to the US because if it is the same everywhere for the sake of silly national pride we move our jobs back to the US. We incur the same moving cost of $10. Therefore we have Revenue or sales is $100. Manufacturing cost is $50. Moving cost of $10. Tax rate is 10%. Profit before tax for tax purposes is $100 - $60 = $40. Tax is $4. However, we are given a 20% tax credit for moving expense. $10 * .2 = 2. The government only assess us tax of 2. Net profit is $38. Tax credits are a one time deal so profit in the future will be $100 -$50 - $5 = $45. Same as the first example.  insourcing = onshoring , outsourcing = offshoring for the purposes of this article. Not quite the same in real life."

negative: It says Amazon has no profits (or very low profits) but the value of the company is very high and growing because of the high revenue. All of the returns to investors are in the form of increased share price which isn't realized or taxed until the shares are sold. This isn't a loophole. Anybody can run a business where they spend most of their revenue on operating costs and run on very slim margins with the goal of growing the revenue.

negative: "Capitalization rate and ""Net Profit margin"" are two different things. In Capitalization rate note that we are taking the ""total value"" in the denominator and in Net profit margin we are taking ""Revenue/Sales"".  Capitalization Rate: Capitalization Rate = Yearly Income/Total Value For example (from Investopedia: ) if Stephane buys a property that will generate $125,000 per year and   he pays $900,000 for it, the cap rate is:   125,000/900,000 = 13.89%. Net Profit margin: Net Profit margin = Net Profit/Revenue For example (from finance formulas): A company's income statement shows a net income of $1 million and   operating revenues of $25 million. By applying the formula, $1 million   divided by $25 million would result in a net profit margin of 4%.   Although the formula is simplistic, applying the concept is important   in that 4% of sales will result in after tax profit."

negative: ">Those roads, schools, police were all funded just fine before this debate started  Um no, no they weren't.  Ever heard of the deficit?  >We have a spending problem not a revenue problem  that's like, your opinion man.  >He's not suggesting that he shouldn't pay any taxes at all, just not INCREASED taxes or liabilities  So taxes are ok but they can't EVER go up?  Why not?  Maybe the current rate isn't the best rate.   All I'm saying is I think it's selfish to say ""I'm going to fire you if my profit goes down"" It's not like he can't continue to run the company and make money, he's just going to make less money.  He's already rich.  So in my mind, that's kinda selfish."

negative: > if a company paid taxes on what profits were created within a countries borders, that would be a fairly accurate method of calculating every country's fair percent of revenue from that company  That's exactly what I said in the post you originally replied to.

negative: >Hate to break it to you but it's the republican policies of deregulation and tax cuts we can't afford that got us this shit sandwich.   Not even close. 1.1Trillion/year deficit is NOT related to taxes, it's related to increased spending while yes, tax revenues fall a bit. But you don't take actions that will make tax revenues fall more. Putting additional burdens on companies doesnt yield more tax revenue. If it did, why not tax them at 90%? But then guess what happens along that chart curve? There are no companies left.  How much in additional taxes could we take in? 100 billion conservatively? Ok genius, what about the other $1 Trillion/year? WE SPEND TOO MUCH!  >Really? Seems to me like a person living paycheck to paycheck would actually have a very good idea of what it's like to live on the edge of bankruptcy  Except for most people close to bankruptcy they never had any capital to begin with. They lived pay check to pay check, using credit cards, buying houses, buying cars.   Businesses must keep a MUCH larger cushion of liquid capital and assets and must plan YEARS in advance. ---very few individuals do this or ever will.   The only correlation is that more and more liabilities are not meeting income. Except when an individual goes bankrupt it's mostly on them. If a company goes bankrupt it can effect hundreds or thousands of employees AND the company. An indivdual going bankrupt won't then bankrupt their creditors or vendors but a company going bankrupt very well could.   I don't know if you knew this, but the United States itself is bankrupt.... We can't meet liabilities with the current income. That doesn't mean increased taxes to increase income. It means reducing liabilities and creating an envionment where those who bring in the revenue can expand.   What we're talking about here is companies receiving additional burdens, not less, thus there is an incentive to decrease liabilities where possible, sell or close if necessary.

negative: The company released its 2nd Quarter Revenue of $1,957,921 a couple days ago however the stock did not move up in any way. Why? If the company is making money shouldn't the stock go up. But that result doesn't indicate that the company is making money.  The word for making money is profit, not revenue.  Profit equals revenue minus costs.  An increasing revenue could mean decreasing profits.  For example, marketing expenses could eat up the entirety of the new revenue.   This is one of the most basic aspects of researching stocks.  If you are having trouble with this, you might find yourself better suited to invest in mutual funds, where they do this research for you.  In particular, the safest kind of mutual funds for an inexperienced investor are index funds that track a major index, like the S&P 500.   Another issue is that stock prices aren't based on historical results but on expected future results.  Many a company has reported smaller than expected profits and had their price fall even though profits increased from previous results.   Looking at it long term would it hurt me in anyway to buy ~100,000 shares which right now would run be about $24 (including to fee) and sit on it? It would cost you $24.  You might get a return some day.  Or you might waste your money.  Given the comparatively large upside, the consensus seems to be that you will probably waste your money.  That said, it's not a lot of money to waste.  So it won't hurt you that much.  The most likely result remains that the company will go bankrupt, leaving your stock worthless.

negative: "You are comparing two things that are not comparable.  The ""market size"" would be the total annual revenue in one market, in this year.  The ""market caps"" of a company is the number of shares multiplied by the share price. This should be equal to the total profit that the company is going to make through its life time, taking into account that you would get interest on an investment, so future profits have to be counted less accordingly.  So if the ""market size"" is ten million dollars, and a company has four million revenue in that market with one million profit, and everyone thinks that company will continue making that profit for the next fifty years, then surely one million a year for the next 50 years is worth more than ten million.  That's if the market stands still. If the ""market size"" is ten million, and we expect that market size to double for the next three years, then the market size is still ten million, but a company having a 40% share of a market growing at that speed is going to be worth a lot more!"

negative: The person I was responding to didn't say they aren't making a profit, and he didn't say they aren't generating any revenue. He said they don't make money, which is ambiguous.  Saying a company isn't making any profit has a clear meaning. Saying a company isn't generating revenue has a clear meaning.  Saying a company isn't making any money does not. It could imply the company is not generating any revenue at all, or that it's not realizing a profit from the revenue that it is generating.  I'm not sure how you read my original comment and come away with the idea that I don't understand the difference between profit and revenue when that was specifically the point I was making.

negative: "> ""We are making progress on the strategic priorities we outlined earlier this year and remain focused on returning our Company to profitability,"" Sears Holdings CEO Eddie Lampert said in a statement.  It's been how many years? I'm impressed that it could last this long, but if it hasn't happened by now, it's not going to happen, ever. Maybe it would if they got new leadership. In fact,   > We are primarily focused on profitability instead of revenues, market share and other metrics which relate to but don’t necessarily drive profit.   in 2014.   > To this end, we have set out to improve the profitability of our business model. Our objective is disciplined growth. We do not want to grow simply for the sake of becoming bigger. Rather, our aim is to become more profitable, and as such we need to ensure that any revenue growth occurs at an appropriate level of profitability.  2007. [Source](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1310067/000119312507043471/dex992.htm). He's been saying the same line for at least 10 years  I may be a naysayer, but I would absolutely love being proved wrong by Mr. Lampert"

negative: Greetings r/finance!! I have a question regarding EBIT and the company that I work for.   The steel company I work for reported they made a profit of $1.3 billion profit. Here's the link with some more numbers:  http://www.nwitimes.com/business/local/arcelormittal-turns-billion-profit-in-second-quarter/article_606a0989-066f-5140-864d-2b04e5f4f294.html  Now I am a union worker and like everyone else in my union, we get a profit sharing check based on the company's profit and with the labor agreement we have with them we get a 7.5% cut of it.   So my question for you guys why did we recieve this piece of paper today?  https://imgur.com/gallery/pSIG3  Why is there still a $33 million dollar loss that we don't get any profit sharing?? Any and all answers or information is appreciated. Thank you for your time in advance!

negative: Yeah, having a $1B profit is a necessity. If only we could increase company profit to $1.5B by lowering taxes, those $500M would trickle down for sure. Company execs and shareholders are just greedy enough to pocket all the profits for themselves at the current tax level, but with a lower tax level they would share the additional proceeds fairly with those on the bottom. Right now we have:  Profit - taxes = greed --> nothing left for increased wages  While we could have:  Profit - (taxes / 2) > greed --> money left for increasing wages

negative: "Dividends are a way of distributing profits from operating a business to the business owners. Why would you call it ""wasting money"" is beyond me. Decisions about dividend distribution are made by the company based on its net revenue and the needs of future capital. In some jurisdictions (the US, for example), the tax policy discourages companies from accumulating too much earnings without distributing dividends, unless they have a compelling reason to do so. Stock price is determined by the market. The price of a stock is neither expensive nor cheap on its own, you need to look at the underlying company and the share of it that the stock represents. In case of Google, according to some analysts, the price is actually quite cheap. The analyst consensus puts the target price for the next 12 months at $921 (vs. current $701)."

negative: FTA: “Yet this new study notes that subsidies aren’t simply cash being handed to oil companies. Subsidies often come in the form of tax breaks, which is just one of the many ways oil companies receive government handouts.”  Tax breaks are not subsidies.  The taxpayer pay absolutely nothing to the oil companies when a tax break is applied.  The taxpayers are actually net recipients from the drilling activity.  If the existence of a tax break is a requirement for oil drilling profitability, then elimination of the tax break would eliminate drilling.  The taxpayers are choosing between zero additional tax revenue without tax breaks or some tax revenue with tax breaks so drilling can proceed.  The article’s point about export ports being subsidized by the taxpayer is a distraction.  The VAST majority of oil produced in the US is consumed in the US.  All that oil is drilled, transported, refined, transported again, then sold to consumers in an end-to-end supply chain built on a vast sum of private capital.

negative: You clearly have no understanding of how the corporate tax code works, so I won't waste my time explaining it. Guess what, they do pay taxes...but lobbyists over the years have made it pretty easy for them to pay as little tax as possible. The logic is pretty clear: remove the special interest loopholes and tax corporations at a globally competitive rate (we have the highest corporate rate among developed countries), more companies shift their production back to America and don't store their profits in foreign holding companies with near 0 rates. More money flows back in to country, r&d goes up, more jobs are created, more Americans are employed in meaningful jobs, wages go up, the govt makes up for  whatever lost corporate revenue with the increased personal income tax.

negative: >You are being extremely aggressive and I don't understand why, I've been pretty level headed.  Sorry, this topic is probably my biggest pet peeve in US tax policy, and I have a strong distaste for our government's tax treatment, greed and arrogance.  >If our rate is the highest, but we still collect less than the average, tell me how these large corporations are being effectively taxed at the highest rate in the developed world? What am I missing?  Okay, let's take two companies with equal profits. One company is an MLP and pays zero corporate taxes, one company pays 40% taxes on profits. The average effective tax rate will be 20%, and one company will end up paying around the highest rate in the world.  I will post my source again.  http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/05/25/sunday-review/corporate-taxes.html  Anyway, I think we should be doing our best to incentivize corporate formation by lowering corporate taxes to zero and moving the incidence of taxation directly to capital.

negative: Most businesses operate at a loss for the first year or two, and reinvest all the profits for expansion for a few years after that. So higher income taxes won't affect them one bit.  > I don't know why everyone focuses so much on the marginal rate of the rich, you can tax the rich 99% and you still won't have enough revenues to cover our budget deficit let alone make the investment we need in infrastructure, health, and education.  Half of all incomes goes to the top 10%. They have more than enough money to fix our infrastructure and education budgets without a negative impact on their life style.  (Note: I intentionally ommitted health care because money alone won't fix that mess.)

negative: The benefit of paying into a pension is that the payment is effectively made from pre-tax money. Either you pay from your own pocket and then you get income tax relief on the payment, i.e. your gross salary is reduced by the gross pension contribution and income tax is recalculated with the excess either refunded to you or put in your pension (the details are a bit more complicated depending on your marginal tax rate, but the end result is the same). Or your company pays, and then you are never charged tax on the payment in the first place. From the company's point of view, the two are roughly the same. Either it pays you who then pays into your pension, or it pays straight into your pension. Either way the money going out from the company is treated as a cost that is offset against the company's revenue, reducing the amount of corporation tax the company has to pay. There are some National Insurance advantages to paying directly into the pension; neither you nor the company gets relief on NI if the payment goes via you, but no NI is paid in the first place if it goes direct from the company. [EDIT: your question is actually worded to suggest that you want to lend your company money from your own pocket, and then have that loan directly discharged by the company paying into your pension. That's no different to you just paying into your pension directly, and wouldn't have any better tax implications. For the rest of my answer, I assume that the idea is actually to lend your company money that it uses to make an immediate contribution to your pension (as part of your pay from that company), and then the company will repay the loan later by returning the money to you personally. Your pension and you are two separate entities legally.] However, in your case, what you're proposing is that the company should effectively make a loss paying into your pension: it's going to end up with more costs than revenue. So, there won't be any immediate tax saving because there wasn't revenue to pay corporation tax on in the first place. You also won't save tax because the loan will be made from previously taxed income or whatever.  However, there will be a tax loss that can be carried forward and offset against future profits, so if you expect the company to make money in future to repay the loan, you might end up saving some corporation tax. You can also sometimes carry a tax loss back one year, so if your company had profits last year you could get some corporation tax back immediately. The repayment of the loan itself won't be subject to income tax as it's not income. So unless you can carry the loss back, you won't get any immediate tax relief by doing this, but it might give you a way to carry forward your annual allowance to future years, i.e. use it now and get the tax advantage later. However, the annual allowance can already be carried forward by up to three years, so this is only worthwhile if you expect that future revenue to repay the loan to arrive more than three years later. Also, this is only worthwhile if you'll continue to max out the annual allowance for paying into your pension in future years, otherwise you might as well just make the pension payment using that same revenue in future years. However, even if this beneficial tax-wise, I'm not sure if it's actually allowed; this might be viewed as an artificial transaction to avoid tax, and that could lead to HMRC disallowing the future tax relief. You might need to ask HMRC or an accountant about that. If you do make the loan, make sure it's clearly documented so you can show in future why the repayment shouldn't be treated as income.

negative: "I am sorry, did you have a better example of a country that does not tax or taxes less but provides better services and protections?   > But we think the rich aren't paying their ""fair share"". Let me tell you, no share is fair. The government didn't work for that paycheck, you did.  Let me tell you, because I am one of those rich guys. I own a business that did millions in revenue last year. I am by far not one of those ""super rich"" that we read about, nor is my company one of those that paid nothing in taxes last year. My company is organized as an S-Corp, which means it is a pass-through when it comes to taxes. (I.e. I pay the taxes, not the company). I had an effective tax rate of over 33% last year, and paid into the six figures just in federal taxes.   That being said, I am also one of those people that feels that our taxes are too low as a country. I would be happy to talk about why, and do it one topic at a time. If water is the topic you want to start with, I would be happy to."

negative: Because interest is tax deductible. I don't know much about the Chevron deal, but I'm an EM debt analyst and typically the issue you have is that dividends are taxed but interest is not. So to move money from a subsidiary instead of putting in equity and getting dividends (tax inefficient), instead you give debt and get interest back. You get a little less flexibility on payment but you more than make up for that (on average) with tax efficiency.   Don't think of it as a loan at all. Think of it as a pseudo-equity investment with required dividends.  Revenue is not taxed, profit is. Interest comes out of profit, dividends however are issued after profit.  This could all be wrong vis-a-vis Chevron. This is just how most of the companies I look at work.

negative: Maybe someone can ELI5 for me: If Obama does happen to raise taxes on businesses, those increased taxes are only on profits, as the taxes were only on profit before. So if a small business loses a little more of its profit, why should it have to lay off people? It still meets its overhead and makes some profit right? Is some % of profit required for a company to keep it's current level of staff?

negative: There are more companies in the S&P500 that are tech enabled services companies, and a few are software as a service (salesforce, cerner, etc.). As a result profit margins used here have expanded. If wages increase, margins should shrink but there is likely going to be growing revenue as we still have a huge output gap because of all the unemployed people who would have income. Not sure there is a mean to regress to

negative: > Bullshit. Entrepreneurs start businesses where it's easiest for start businesses, and if all of their networking contacts are here, the infrastructure they need to start their company is here, and the target market is here, they aren't going anywhere.  Part of being an easier place to start a business includes low tax rates, minimal (smart) regulations, state of the art infrastructure, and a highly educated and healthy work force. Notice how Republicans champion the first 2 and ignore the second 2 while the Democrats are vice versa.   I don't know why everyone focuses so much on the marginal rate of the rich, you can tax the rich 99% and you still won't have enough revenues to cover our budget deficit let alone make the investment we need in infrastructure, health, and education. Why don't we talk about how America can be competitive in a globalized market and what will have the highest return on investment. If we are raising taxes on the top 1% just to fund wars in iraq, then fuck that. If we are doing it to help fund our education system, then it only benefits them and everyone else even more because it will grow our economy. It's an investment, not a tax.

negative: I'm not a tax advisor, but I've done freelance work, so... If any of your side-business revenue is reported on a 1099, you're now a business owner, which is why Schedule C must be filled out. As a business owner, minimum wage doesn't apply to you. All revenue is income to you, and you owe taxes on the profit, after subtracting legitimate (verifiable) business expenses. You'll want to talk to a real tax advisor if you're going to start expensing mileage, part of your house (if you use a home office), etc. Don't forget that you'll owe self-employment tax (the employer's half of your payroll tax).  You can't save money on business taxes by paying yourself a wage and then counting it as an expense to the business. You'll definitely want to talk to a tax expert if you start playing around with finances as an (the) owner of the business. Income that is not reported on a 1099 should be reported as hobby income.

negative: Uber: currently they recognize 100% of the cost of a UberPool ride as revenue.  The amount the drivers keep is a cost of sales.  Under the new rules, they would only recognize as revenue the amount that goes to Uber (same as on the solo rides).  The net impact is a material reduction in revenue and no impact on profits or cash flow.  Tech.  The accounting rule changes will cause companies to recognize more revenue early on, and less expenses.  Both of these things will increase their accounting profits.  There is no impact on cash flow.

negative: "Well, the article does go into certain tax schemes. You can use the debt as a write-off to lower your tax rate. That's just a legal tax scheme in the UK and many other countries. The problem though is that the UK department of Starbucks is apparently very profitable:  > US executives of the Seattle company claiming in telephone calls with investors [...] that the UK business was profitable.  and  > Howard Schultz, told investors the business here was so successful he planned to apply the lessons to the company's biggest market in the US.  It's just that the books tell a different story:  > Accounts filed with Companies House [...] showed a 10th consecutive annual loss.  So no, it's not a just a matter of revenue vs sales. It's a matter of boosting your losses with outside, sometimes artificial debt, just so you can run with a negative on the books. This lowers the tax rate on the true sales to a whopping 0.3%, even though the business is perfectly healthy.   That's misusing a tax scheme aimed at easing the tax burden on ""national"" businesses which aren't profitable."

negative: Generally speaking, if you have significant revenue outside the US, then you're better off incorporating out of the US. The US has significantly higher corporate tax rates, and taxes on worldwide income not just revenue in the US. Setting up in an offshore country would have no corporate tax but would cost about $1000 a year in fees.   For any non-US company, your US partner would need to file a 5471 form with his US personal tax which reports the company's finances. That costs about $1000 a year for an accountant to prepare. So you still need accounting on the company, even if you are not paying corporate tax.  Setting up the company is reasonably easy, you just use a broker. The bank account may be more difficult but they can help with that too.  You may find that your optimal personal tax strategy and your US partner's strategy are different. For example, if your partner is living overseas, then they are not taxed on salary in the US, but are taxed on dividends. So they would prefer to take any money out of the company as salary, resulting in no corporate profits. You, on the other hand, might prefer dividends.

negative: It will depend on how much you expect to earn this way, and whether you expect the company to become profitable soon. Has the company just not made a profit yet, or has it actually made a significant loss that your invoices would just be offsetting? If you're earning over £10,000 per year then invoicing through the company is preferable. Above that level, you'd be taking money from the company as dividends after paying 20% corporation tax with no other tax to pay on your personal tax return. As a sole trader you'd be paying 20% income tax and 9% NI. (Note however that the company can only pay dividends from profits, which is a problem if there are significant losses to offset.) Below £10,000, there's little difference. Through the company, you can take a salary of £7956 per year without paying any income tax or NI. With the new £2000 discount on employers' NI you could then take salary up to £10,000 and just pay 12% employee's NI. As a sole trader, you pay 9% Class 4 NI over £7956 and a fixed £143 per year for Class 2 NI. Paying 9% rather than 12% saves you £60, but then you add the £143. In practice the company would work out more expensive at this level because you'll probably want to pay an accountant to deal with the payroll for you. Having the company repay your £2000 from the invoices doesn't really save any tax if the company will become profitable in the future. You don't pay any tax now since the money you receive isn't income, and the company doesn't pay any tax if the extra £2000 of revenue doesn't put it back in profit. However, if the company is profitable next year then it will have an extra £2000 of profit that would otherwise have been offset against this year's loss, and you do end up paying 20% corporation tax on the £2000. You could still have the company repay the loan in order to delay the tax liability, but it's not really tax free money. Loaning additional money to the company has no tax benefit, you just give the company £1000 and get your original £1000 back later. You pay no tax and neither does the company, but it was your money in the first place.

negative: "Yeah, I understand that is a nebulous term, akin to stopping ""pork"" in various bills. However, getting back to that Economist article, this really stood out to me:  > America’s corporate tax has two horrible flaws. The first is the tax rate, which at 35% is the highest among the 34 mostly rich-country members of the OECD. Yet it raises less revenue than the OECD average thanks to myriad loopholes and tax breaks aimed at everything from machinery investment to NASCAR race tracks. Last year these breaks cost $150 billion in forgone revenue, more than half of what America collected in total corporate taxes.  I'm not clear on where they got that number, but assuming it is true, there are certainly plenty of places we could start if we were to lower the tax rate to a sane level.   Also, I still don't see how just lowering the tax rate and removing the repatriation tax on foreign earned profit would truly disincentivize inversion. If there are countries like Bermuda still out there with say, random number here, a 5% corporate tax, wouldn't the incentive still exist?"

negative: This is how all corporations shift taxes to low income tax . Most large companies are actually hundreds of companies, with individual companies in each country they do business in. They use this type of transfer payment so most of the profits end up in countries with low income taxes. That is why you might as well lower the corporate rate.  It will help employment, and end this kind of useless profit shifting. It's a world wide economy, and companies do what they need to do to keep taxes low no matter what.

negative: "I love it - it was the policies under Bush (as much as one can squarely place blame on the president) that results in the crash that nearly destroyed him - the same president he claims he got elected... and yet here were are and he is claiming if Obama is re-elected that he might have to fire people because of his policies (as much as he claims we can squarely place blame on the president) would lead to another loss for his company, that is after they enjoyed this period of recovery that allows him to continue building his massive house o' opulence.   Wonderful business sense, ""Pay more in taxes?? FUCK those profits altogether! I'll shut down the company and HA HA! That'll show them! Because no one else will swoop in and pick up my massively profitable vacation scam business... you know why? Because taxes - that's why! And socialism! and communism!.... COMMULISM!"""

negative: Moody's came out with an analysis today saying the requirement could be slightly good for for-profit hospitals (Bad-debt charges will decline. The expansion of healthcare coverage under the law will lessen for-profit hospital operators’ exposure to bad debts, which in turn will improve margins and cash flow. However, we expect that the growth rate of Medicare reimbursements will also slow down, offsetting the benefit of lower bad-debt expense and making the overall credit impact of the ruling neutral to slightly positive), negative for pharmaceutical cos. (Pharmaceutical companies will continue to pay for the full adoption of the Affordable Care Act in the form of higher rebates to the government for Medicaid drug costs, discounts to seniors covered under Medicare Part D drug plans and a new industry fee) and slightly negative for medical device firms (Beginning Jan. 1, 2013, US medical-device product sales will be subject to a 2.3% excise tax; the excise tax will be tax-deductible, resulting in an estimated effective tax rate of 1.5% on US device revenues).


query: When to sell a stock?

positive: I am a believer in stocks for the long term, I sat on the S&P right though the last crash, and am 15% below the high before the crash.  For individual stocks, you need to look more closely, and often ask yourself about its valuation. The trick is to buy right and not be afraid to sell when the stock appears to be too high for the underlying fundamentals. Before the dotcom bubble I bought Motorola at $40. Sold some at $80, $100, and out at $120. Coworkers who bought in were laughing as it went to $160. But soon after, the high tech bubble burst, and my sales at $100 looked good in hindsight. The stock you are looking at - would you buy more at today's price? If not, it may be time to sell at least some of that position.

positive: "My theory is that for every stock you buy, you should have an exit strategy and follow it.  It is too hard to let emotions rule if you let your default strategy be ""let's see what happens."" and emotional investing will almost never serve you well.  So before buying a stock, set a maximum loss and maximum gain that you will watch for on the stock, and when it hits that number sell.  At the very least, when it hits one of your numbers, consciously make a decision that you are effectively buying it again at the current price if you decide to stay in. When you do this, set a new high and low price and repeat the above strategy."

positive: Keep a diary, before buying write down why are you buying the stock, how long do you plan to keep it. Put down reasons when you would sell it. For example you buy a stock because it has lot of cash reserve, it is a focused company, good management. You would sell when management leaves or it starts to use its cash for  acquisition that are not fitting in profile.

negative: "Honestly, I wonder if the other answerers aren't overthinking it. Their answers are detailed and correct, but what your coach may be saying is this: When you have bought a stock, on cash or margin, and you are watching it rise you are evaluating when you sell on the price of the stock you are seeing. In reality, you should look at the bid (price buyers will give you for the stock) and ask (price sellers will charge you for the stock) prices. If the stock is going up, odds are the price of the stock is very close to the ask price because it is purchases that are driving it up, but that's not what you're going to get when you sell. You're going to get something around the bid price. If the spread between the two is large (i.e. a volatile stock) this could be many cents or more lower than the ask price. Therefore, what your coach may mean by ""Selling on Ask"" is you're using the stock price when it's equal or close to the ask price to decide when to sell, instead of letting the stock peak and drop (when its price will approach the bid price) or letting the trailing bid offers catch up to your desired sell point and selling then (i.e. letting the stock point grow PAST your sell point, dragging the bid price up with it). Just a thought, but that sounds like a term a coach would come up with to mean selling and getting less than you thought you were going to from the sale. (I know it's a necro reply, but the Interwebs are immortal and people come via Google... I did)"

negative: Cash changes hands when you buy or sell the stock. While you own the stock, you own it, not cash, so there is no cash to go anywhere. You spent your money when you bought. The seller got that money. It's gone. You hope that when you sell the stock, someone will give you more money for it than you spent. But they may give you less. Money doesn't magically appear either way, it comes from the buyer. After selling, you have the money -- however much you sold for -- and no longer have the stock. NOTE that this means the current value of a share of stock is interesting, but not really very relevant, unless you are actively buying or selling. What your portfolio is worth on paper is nothing more than an approximate snapshot at the moment you retrieve the data. It is not a promise of what will actually happen when you do sell.

negative: You are misunderstanding what makes the price of a stock go up and down. Every time you sell a share of a stock, there is someone else that buys the stock.  So it is not accurate to say that stock prices go down when large amounts of the stock are sold, and up when large amounts of the stock are bought.  Every day, the amount of shares of a stock that are bought and sold are equal to each other, because in order to sell a share of stock, someone has to buy it. Let me try to explain what actually happens to the price of a stock when you want to sell it. Let's say that a particular stock is listed on the ticker at $100 a share currently.  All this means is that the last transaction that took place was for $100; someone sold their share to a buyer for $100. Now let's say that you have a share of the stock you'd like to sell.  You are hoping to get $100 for your share.  There are 2 other people that also have a share that they want to sell.  However, there is only 1 person that wants to buy a share of stock, and he only wants to pay $99 for a share.  If none of you wants to sell lower than $100, then no shares get sold.  But if one of you agrees to sell at $99, then the sale takes place.  The ticker value of the stock is now $99 instead of $100. Now let's say that there are 3 new people that have decided they want to buy a share of the stock.  They'd like to buy at $99, but you and the other person left with a share want to sell at $100.  Either one of the sellers will come down to $99 or one of the buyers will go up to $100.  This process will continue until everyone that wants to sell a share has sold, and everyone who wants to buy a share has bought.  In general, though, when there are more people that want to sell than buy, the price goes down, and when there are more people that want to buy than sell, the price goes up. To answer your question, if your selling of the stock had caused the price to go down, it means that you would have gotten less money for your stock than if it had not gone down.  Likewise, if your buying the stock had caused it to go up, it just means that it would have cost you more to buy the stock.  It is just as likely that you would lose money doing this, rather than gain money.

negative: Buy and sell orders always include the price at which you buy/sell. That's how the market prices for stocks are determines. So if you want to place a buy order at 106, you can do that. When that order was fulfilled and you have the stock, you can place a sell order at 107. It will be processed as soon as someone places a buy order at 107. Theoretically you can even place sell orders for stocks you haven't even bought yet. That's called short selling. You do that when you expect a stock to go down in the future. But this is a very risky operation, because when you mispredict the market you might end up owing more money than you invested. No responsible banker will even discuss this with you when you can not prove you know what you are doing.

negative: "Buying pressure is when there are more buy orders than sell orders outstanding.  Just because someone wants to buy a stock doesn't mean there's a seller ready to fill that order.  When there's buying pressure, stock prices rise.  When there's selling pressure, stock prices fall. There can be high volume where buying and selling are roughly equal, in which case share prices wouldn't move much. The market makers who actually fill buy and sell orders for stock will raise share prices in the face of buying pressure and lower them in the face of selling pressure.  That's because they get to keep the margin between what they bought shares from a seller for and what they can sell them to a new buyer for.  Here's an explanation from InvestorPlace.com about ""buying pressure"": Buying pressure can basically be defined as increasingly higher demand for a particular stock's shares. This demand for shares exceeds the supply and causes the price to rise. ... The strength or weakness of a stock determines how much buying or selling interest will be required to break support and resistance areas. I hope this helps!"

negative: This depends on the particular index, of course. Capital gains taxes occur when stock is sold (for a profit). This occurs less frequently in an index fund: Where an active manager frequently buys and sells stocks (after all, he wants to be active :-) ), the index fund only sells stocks when the particular stock leaves the index. For an index such as the S&P 500 this does not happen that often.  The more specific the criteria of the index fund, the more often the selling of stock and thus the need to pay capital gains taxes occurs.

negative: "There are three ways to do this. So far the answers posted have only mentioned two.  The three ways are: Selling short means that you borrow stock from your broker and sell it with the intent of buying it back later to repay the loan.  As others have noted, this has unlimited potential losses and limited potential gains.  Your profit or loss will go $1:$1 with the movement of the price of the stock. Buying a put option gives you the right to sell the stock at a later date on a price that you choose now.  You pay a premium to have this right, and if the stock moves against you, you won't exercise your option and will lose the premium.  Options move non-linearly with the price of the stock, especially when the expiration is far in the future.  They probably are not for a beginner, although they can be powerful if used properly. The third option is a synthetic short position.  You form this by simultaneously buying a put option and selling short a call option, both at the same strike price.  This has a risk profile that is very much like the selling the stock short, but you can accomplish it entirely with stock options.  Because you're both buying an selling, in theory you might even collect a small net premium when you open. You might ask why you'd do this given that you could just sell the stock short, which certainly seems simpler.  One reason is that it is not always possible to sell the stock short.  Recall that you have to borrow shares from your broker to sell short.  When many people want to short the stock, brokers will run out of shares to loan.  The stock is then said to be ""hard to borrow,"" which effectively prevents further short selling of the stock.  In this case the synthetic short is still potentially possible."

negative: If you buy US stocks when the CAD is high and sell them when the CAD is lower you will make a currency gain on top of any profit or loss from the stock investments. If you buy US stocks when the CAD is low and sell when the CAD is higher any profits from gains from the stock investment will be reduced and any losses will be increased. If you are just starting out you may be better off investing in your own country to avoid any currency risk adding to your stock market risk.

negative: The benefit is not in taxes. When you sell a portion of your stock, you no longer have a portion of your stock. When you get a dividend, you still have a portion of your stock. Dividends are distributed from the net profits of a company and as such usually don't affect its growth/earning potential much (although there may be cases when they do). So while the price takes a temporary dip due to the distribution, you're likely to get the same dividends again next year, if the company continues being similarly profitable. If you sell a portion of your stock, at some point you'll end up with no more stocks to sell.

negative: For the same reason you wanted it when you bought it. No-one guarantees that you'll be able to sell the stock you hold, and in fact many people get stuck with stocks they'd like to sell, but no-one is buying. But if investors think there's a profit potential that is not exhausted yet - they'll want to buy the stock.

negative: "Learn something new every day... I found this interesting and thought I'd throw my 2c in. Good description (I hope) from Short Selling: What is Short Selling First, let's describe what short selling means when you purchase shares of stock. In purchasing stocks, you buy a piece of ownership in the company. You buy/sell stock to gain/sell ownership of a company. When an investor goes long on an investment, it means that he or she has bought a stock believing its price will rise in the future. Conversely, when an investor goes short, he or she is anticipating a decrease in share price. Short selling is the selling of a stock that the seller doesn't own. More specifically, a short sale is the sale of a security that isn't owned by the seller, but that is promised to be delivered.  Still with us? Here's the skinny: when you short sell a stock, your broker will lend it to you. The stock will come from the brokerage's own inventory, from another one of the firm's customers, or from another brokerage firm. The shares are sold and the proceeds are credited to your account. Sooner or later, you must ""close"" the short by buying back the same number of shares (called covering) and returning them to your broker. If the price drops, you can buy back the stock at the lower price and make a profit on the difference. If the price of the stock rises, you have to buy it back at the higher price, and you lose money. So what happened? The Plan The Reality Lesson I never understood what ""Shorting a stock"" meant until today. Seems a bit risky for my blood, but I would assume this is an extreme example of what can go wrong. This guy literally chose the wrong time to short a stock that was, in all visible aspects, on the decline.  How often does a Large Company or Individual buy stock on the decline... and send that stock soaring? How often does a stock go up 100% in 24 hours? 600%?  Another example is recently when Oprah bought 10% of Weight Watchers and caused the stock to soar %105 in 24 hours. You would have rued the day you shorted that stock - on that particular day - if you believed enough to ""gamble"" on it going down in price."

negative: "If you sell a stock you don't own, it's called a short sale. You borrowed the shares from an owner of the stock and eventually would buy to close. On most normal shares, you can hold a short position indefinitely, but there are some shares that have a combination of either a small float or too high a short position that shares to short are not available.  This can create a ""short squeeze"" where shorts are burned by being forced to buy the stock back.  Last - when you did this, you should have instructed the broker that you were ""selling to open"" or ""selling short."" In the old days, when people held stock certificates, you were required to send the certificate in when you sold. Today, the broker should know that wasn't your intention."

negative: You realise a capital gain as soon as you sell the stock. At that point, you will have to pay taxes on the profits when you fill in your tax return. The fact that you used the money to subsequently purchase other stocks is not relevant, unless you sell those stocks within the same tax year. For example, purchase $5000 of stock A in 2010. Sell for $6000 in 2010. Purchase $6000 of stock B in 2010. Sell stock B for $6500 in 2010. Purchase $6500 of stock C in 2010. Sell stock C for $7000 in 2011. You owe capital gains on ($6000 - $5000) + ($6500 - $6000) = $1500 for tax year 2010. You owe capital gains on ($7000 - $6500) = $500 for 2011.

negative: I'm just began playing in the stock   market. I assume you mean that you're not using real money, but rather you have an account with a stock simulator like the one Investopedia offers. I am hopeful that's the case due to the high level of risk involved in short selling like you're describing. Here is another post about short selling that expands a bit on that point. To learn much more about the ins and outs of short selling I will point again to Investopedia. I swear I don't work for them, but they do have a great short selling tutorial.  When you short sell a stock you are borrowing the stock from your broker. (The broker typically uses stock held by one or more of his clients to cover the loan.) Since it's basically a loan you pay interest. Of course the longer you hold it the more interest you pay. Also, as Joe mentioned there are scenarios in which you may be forced to buy the stock (at a higher price than you sold it). This tends to happen when the stock price is going against the short sell (i.e. you lose money). Finally, did anyone mention that the potential losses in a short sell are infinite?

negative: I'm not sure where people keep getting this idea, but I see it come up a lot. Anyway, you pay capital gains taxes when you sell an investment that has appreciated. It makes no difference when/if you reinvest the money or what you invest it in. If you are afraid of the tax burden you can minimize it by: 1) Selling a stock that you have held longer than a year to get the lower long-term rate. 2) Sell a stock that hasn't appreciated that much and therefore doesn't have a lot of gains to tax. 3) Sell a stock that's below purchase price (i.e. at a loss) to offset any short term gains.

negative: New to investing... when I buy/sell a stock can I buy/sell at the exact market price whenever I'd like or is there more to it? Does there need to be a demand for when I'm trying to sell or am I just forcing the company to buy back my shares? Sorry if confusing/rookie question

negative: Answers here are correct but I'll offer an extremely (overly) simple explanation that should help you in understanding the more detailed answers.  When most people own stock they do so through a broker.  Unless you jump through some hoops, the broker keeps the shares in the name of the brokerage.  This is called holding the stock in street name. When you sell short through a brokerage, the broker is letting you borrow a certain number of shares owned by someone else and sell them for cash now.  At some point, you need to repay this loan with the same number of shares you borrowed.  Ideally, you want the stock to drop to $0.  The reason you might be forced to purchase the stock is that the actual owner(s) of the stock want to sell.  If the broker has too many people wanting to sell, you will need to repay some of all of the loan (in shares) i.e. purchasing shares at the current market price.

negative: "Stocks with a low average daily trading volume (""thinly traded stocks"") will also tend to have higher spreads. So you'll tend to pay more when you buy and get less when you sell."

negative: When you buy a stock and sell a covered call, the call can't be valued higher than the stock, right? How can a call on a $10 stock sell for more than the stock?  So, the initial position of a covered call will cost you something. The transaction is a debit  to you. The net amount of the deal, usually prices as per stock/option single share.  For the image showing net credit, it's as if you expect to get paid for you to take this deal.

negative: If the company reported a loss at the previous quarter when the stock what at say $20/share, and now just before the company's next quarterly report, the stock trades around $10/share. There is a misunderstanding here, the company doesn't sell stock, they sell products (or services). Stock/share traded at equity market. Here is the illustration/chronology to give you better insight:   Now addressing the question What if the stock's price change? Let say, Its drop from $10 to $1 Is it affect XYZ revenue ? No why? because XYZ selling ads not their stocks the formula for revenue revenue = products (in this case: ads) * quantity the equation doesn't involve capital (stock's purchasing)

negative: "It's not either or.  Much of the time the value of the stock has some tangible relation to the financial prospects of the company. The value of Ford and GM stock rose when they were selling a lot of cars, and collapsed when their cars became unpopular. Other companies (Enron for example) frankly 'cook the books' to make it appear they are prospering, when they are actually drowning in debt and non-performing assets. So called ""penny stocks"" have both low prices and low volumes and are susceptible to ""pump and dump"" schemes, where a manipulator buys a bunch of the stock, touts the stock to the world, pointing to the recent increase in price. They then sell out to all the new buyers, and the price collapses.  If you are going to invest in the stock market it's up to you to figure out which companies are which."

negative: Rebalance is across asset-classes which are mutually independent [like stocks and bonds; they may be inversely correlated at times as when stocks go down, bonds go up] 80%-20% (stock-bond) split is good for a young investor [say in 30s, some suggest 110-age as a good stock allocation percentage]. Here rebalance is done when say the asset-allocation(AA) strays away more than say 3 to 5% (again just a rule of thumb). E.g. if due to a recent run-up in stocks, AA could become 85%-15%. Then you sell stocks to buy bonds to make the AA 80%-20% And since this method always sells the winner -- you automatically make gains [selling high and buying low] S&P 500 index gives decent diversification within stocks; you want a total-bond-fund to take care of the bond side of your AA.

negative: The Owners of stock keep changing with every Buy and Sell. Hence its theoritically possible that everyone makes or loses money. Say the price was $10 when everyone purchased the stock. If the stock is doing good and the markets are good, the stock will move up to $12. Everyone sells the stock to someone else. So all the Old owners have made $2. Now after some period of time, the stock / company is not doing so well, and the markets are bad, so the stock falls to $11, everyone sells. So all the current owners make a loss of $1.   However in normal market conditions, there are Owners who have purchased stock at different price points and have held it irrespective of whether the price has gone above their purchase price or below their purchase price.

negative: Shorting Stocks: Borrowing the shares to sell now. Then buying them back when the price drops.  Risk: If you are wrong the stock can go up. And if there are a lot of people shorting the stock you can get stuck in a short squeeze.  That means that so many people need to buy the stock to return the ones they borrowed that the price goes up even further and faster.  Also whoever you borrowed the stock from will often make the decision to sell for you. Put options. Risk: Put values don't always drop when the underlying price of the stock drops. This is because when the stock drops volatility goes up. And volatility can raise the value of an option. And you need to check each stock for whether or not these options are available. finviz lists whether a stock is optional & shortable or not. And for shorting you also need to find a broker that owns shares that they are willing to lend out.

negative: "When people talk about ""the price"" of a stock, they usually mean one of the following: Last price:  The price at which a trade most recently took place.  If someone sold (and someone else bought) shares of XYZ for $20 each, then until another trade occurs, the last price of the stock will be quoted at $20. Bid price: The highest price at which someone is currently offering to buy the stock. Ask price: The lowest price at which someone is currently offering to sell the stock. As you can see, all of these are completely determined by the people buying and selling the stock."

negative: "This is a misconception. One of the explanations is that if you buy at the ask price and want   to sell it right away, you can only sell at the bid price. This is incorrect. There are no two separate bid and ask prices. The price you buy (your ""bid"") is the same price someone else sells (their ""sell""). The same goes when you sell - the price you sell at is the price someone else buys. There's no spread with stocks. Emphasized it on purpose, because many people (especially those who gamble on stock exchange without knowing what they're doing) don't understand how the stock market works. On the stock exchange, the transaction price is the match between the bid price and the ask price. Thus, on any given transaction, bid always equals ask. There's no spread. There is spread with commodities (if you buy it directly, especially), contracts, mutual funds and other kinds of brokered transactions that go through a third party. The difference (spread) is that third party's fee for assuming part of the risk in the transaction, and is indeed added to your cost (indirectly, in the way you described). These transactions don't go directly between a seller and a buyer. For example, there's no buyer when you redeem some of your mutual fund - the fund pays you money. So the fund assumes certain risk, which is why there's a spread in the prices to invest and to redeem. Similarly with commodities: when you buy a gold bar - you buy it from a dealer, who needs to keep a stock. Thus, the dealer will not buy from you at the same price: there's a premium on sale and a discount on buy, which is a spread, to compensate the dealer for the risk of keeping a stock."

negative: Stop order is shorter term for stop-loss order.  The point being that is intended as a protective measure.  A buy stop order would be used to limit losses when an investor has sold a stock short.  (Meaning that they have borrowed stock and sold it, in hopes that they can take advantage of a decline in the stock's price by replacing the borrowed stock later at a cheaper price.  The idea is to limit losses due to a rising stock price.)  Meanwhile, a sell stop order would be used to limit losses on a stock that an investor actually owns, by selling it before the price declines further. The important thing to keep in mind about stop orders is that they turn into market orders when the stop price is reached.  This means that they will be filled at the best available price when the order is actually executed.  In fast moving markets, this can be a price that is quite different from the stop price. A limit order allows an investor to ensure that they do not buy/sell a stock at more/less than the specified amount. The thing to keep in mind is that a limit order is not guaranteed to execute. A stop-limit order is a combination of a stop-loss order and limit order, in that it becomes a limit order (instead of a market order) when the stop price is reached. Links to definitions: Stop order Stop-limit order Limit order Market order

negative: When the market moves significantly, you should rebalance your investments to maintain the diversification ratios you have selected. That means if bonds go up and stocks go down, you sell bonds and buy stocks (to some degree), and vice versa. Sell high to buy low, and remember that over the long run most things regress to the mean.

negative: "After the initial public offering, the company can raise money by selling more stock (equity financing) or selling debt (e.g. borrowing money).  If a company's stock price is high, they can raise money with equity financing on more favorable terms.  When companies raise money with equity financing, they create new shares and dilute the existing shareholders, so the number of shares outstanding is not fixed. Companies can also return money to shareholders by buying their own equity, and this is called a share repurchase.  It's best for companies to repurchase their shared when their stock price is low, but ""American companies have a terrible track record of buying their own shares high and selling them low."" The management of a company typically likes a rising stock price, so their stock options are more valuable and they can justify bigger pay packages."

negative: "Seems like no one in this thread has heard of ""treasury stocks"", which indeed allow a company to own and sell its own stock. Think about it. When there is a stock buy-back funded by excess profits, where does that stock go?"

negative: You don't. When you sell them - your cost basis would be the price of the stock at which you sold the stocks to cover the taxes, and the difference is your regular capital gain.

negative: "Selling as well as buying a stock are part science and part art form.  I remember once selling a stock at its 52 week high too. That particular stock ""quadrupled"" in value over the next 52 weeks.  Mind you I made 50% ROI on the stock but my point is that none of us have a crystal ball on whether a particular stock will ever stop or start going up or stop or start going down. If someone had those answers they wouldn't be telling you they would be practicing them to make more money! Make up your mind what you want to make and stick by your decisions.  Bulls make money when stocks go up and Bears make money when they go down but pigs don't make money. -RobF"