Income
- [summary of current design
[edit]space heating design A low temperature 'junk heat' system designed to meet the design temperature load of 25,000 Btu/hr. Most of the space heating is provided by radiant floor heating, most of that through a high thermal mass radiant slab with water at ~100 °. The remainder is provided by panel radiators designed to operate at 120 °. The radiant floor water is drawn from the middle of the 119 gallon storage tank. The panel radiators draw their water from the top of the tank. A evacuated tube solar panel takes water from the bottom of the tank and returns it to the upper region of the tank. The water in the tanks is at atmospheric pressure. The tank is used for heat storage and as the drainback tank for the solar collector. The level can be determined through the sight glass and is maintained by the user. The intent is to maintain stratification of temperature within the tank Additional heat for the storage stank is provided through heat exchange from the DHW system. [edit]domestic hot water design Instant condensing hot water heaters from Navien, Takagi and Noritz all can be configured for use with indirect hot water heaters and allow for solar pre-heating of cold water input. Cold water enters the the water heater via the storage tank using the upper heat exchanger coil to preheat the water. Hot water at 140 ° leaves the heater and again enters the storage tank, this time through the lower coil. After leaving off some heat back in the tank the water continues on to showers and other residential devices. This 'priority' circuit provides DHW. The water that loops through the lower coil can, under certain circumstances, recirculate back into the heater inlet. In short, during the heating season, when the water in the tank falls below a certain temperature this circulator is activated. [edit]discussion [edit]priority by design The advantage of preheating the DHW heater input is that for these on-demand heater units deliverable flowrate correlates inversely the inlet and outlet temperature difference so reducing that difference increases your flowrate. During DHW demand, more heat is taken out of the tank in pre-heating the water than is returned on its pass through the lower coil. The temperature difference is greater between The cold supply and the hot water in the top of the tank than it is between the heated DHW and the water in the lower section of the tank. When the tank 'calls' for heat and there is little or no DHW demand, the heat delivered to the lower coil is no longer offset by that lost by the upper coil since no (or little) water is flowing through the upper coil. During DHW demand the space heating system pitches in by preheating the water, in effect giving 'priority by design'. [edit]flipping the paradigm Most designs using indirect heating tanks have the DHW in the tank heated indirectly by the boiler loop (and possibly solar loop) running through the helical heat exchange coils. In this design the tank water is not used for DHW but is merely a junk heat repository of relatively low temperature water sent out to the domestic space heating emitters and for low temp solar or other inputs. The potable DHW runs through the helical coil heat exchangers on its way to satisfy DHW requirements of the household. The system takes advantage of the efficiency inherent in a condensing hot water heater operating at low temperatures. Even when providing for space heating requirements it cool temperature water from the bottom of the tank that is transmitted to the heater. [edit]stratifying for emitter type The high mass radiant slab heat gets warmed up at the beginning of the heating season and stays warm at around 100 ° until the outdoor sensor tells it that summer has arrived. This thermal mass is located in the center of an open-plan living area. The flow rate need not be great nor does it require adjustment (other then a mixing valve bypass to prevent overheating). The other emitters can respond quickly to the ambient temperature in each room via their thermostatic radiator valves. The low mass system adjusts to demand automatically via the pressure regulated variable speed regulator. These emitters are located for the most part in bedrooms and rooms not part of the central open-space core of the house. The need for hydraulic separation is greatly reduced since the 'boiler' is isolated in its own loop running at a modest flow rate. The tank acts as a buffer between the source and the emitter loops and as a buffer between the flow requirements of the high mass and low mass emitter loops. [edit]reducing the costs of solar Drainback tanks can cost as much as $600 and add complexity to the solar subsystem. Here the pump will probably need to be variable speed, able to overcome the head requirements for refilling the system and then throttle down adjusting its flow to solar conditions. (Or maybe there can be second pump in series that only comes on for filling). In any event it would be a good idea to limit drainback to only occur to respond to freeze or tank overheating danger. Perhaps that can be accomplished by placing an electrically operated valve that allows air into the solar loop at its zenith (high point) during those conditions that require drainback. (Maybe allowing air in anywhere, not just the top, would cause it to drain) Solar collectors work better with a high ΔT so maintaining the statification in the storage tank is important. Drawing water from and returning it at a tank levels with similar temperature reduces tank mixing and increases stratification. Low flow rates (particularly for entering water) lessen mixing as well.
- http://www.unclefed.com/IRS-Forms/taxtables/index.html brackets 1991-2004]
app text
decide page
cap gains
The argument:
For low/no cap gains rates
"To many conservatives, it’s a matter of faith that the tax rate on capital gains should be lower than ordinary rates, or even zero. They believe that lower tax rates encourage risk-taking and entrepreneurship, offset the double taxation of corporate profits...
Treat them as ordinary income,
The current system a scam that predominantly benefits the rich. It allows the rich to get richer on the backs of ordinary income taxpayers from the middle class. The poor babies need encouragement to be 'job creators' of jobs like Foxconn iphone assemblers. We'r not buying it anymore. You don't like it here, move to China.
It's a ginormous loophole
"Taxing capital gains at much lower rates than other income creates a ginormous loophole that leads to a tremendous amount of inefficient tax shelter activity. Virtually every individual income tax shelter is devoted to converting fully taxed income into capital gains. If you can transform $10 million of wages into gains, you can save over $2 million. With that kind of payoff, there is a whole industry devoted to inventing schemes to generate current deductions to shelter the wages and ultimately recoup it years later as lightly taxed gains. These shelter schemes entail inefficiency for at least two reasons. First, the investments that work in tax shelter plans are often very inefficient—the kinds of projects that would never attract capital in a rational world. Second, the people who put these schemes together are very intelligent and absent the capital gains windfall might actually do socially productive work like, say, producing American products that people around the world would like to buy." (Len Burman, professor at Syracuse, in Forbes from <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/leonardburman/2012/01/18/mitt-romneys-teachable-moment-on-capital-gains/">Mitt Romney's Teachable Moment on Capital Gains</a>)
research
- Households making $1 million or more account for just 1 in 364 .2% taxpayers, yet they captured an astonishing 36.1 percent of the total real increase in incomes in America from 2006 to 2007, according to my analysis of new data. Even among the rich, most of the gains went to the very top. Just 18,400 taxpayers make more than $10 million, yet they captured every fifth dollar of increased income going to the whole nation -- and then some. Indeed, this thinnest and richest slice of Americans, just one household in 7,700, pocketed 22.3 percent of the entire national increase.
Table 1. Average Incomes by Income Group, 1980 to 2007 [includes capital gains] Comparing Average Income of Most to Top Earners ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Income Group 0-90% 90-95% 95-99% 99-99.5% ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1980 $29,797 $94,075 $134,839 $235,651 1990 $29,663 $102,915 $156,518 $301,139 2000 $32,978 $124,641 $213,641 $460,678 2001 $32,323 $120,936 $199,477 $410,818 2002 $31,215 $117,526 $190,076 $383,527 2004 $31,125 $119,668 $198,553 $419,239 2005 $31,318 $121,930 $207,894 $452,258 2006 $31,528 $125,831 $213,600 $471,207 2007 $32,421 $128,560 $220,105 $486,395 1980 to 2007 change $2,624 $34,485 $85,267 $250,744 Percent change 8.8% 36.7% 63.2% 106.4% 2000 to 2007 change $(557) $3,918 $6,464 $25,717 Percent change (1.7)% 3.1% 3.0% 5.6% ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Income Group 99.5-99.9% 99.9-99.99% 99.99-100% ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1980 $383,543 $972,329 $5,236,852 1990 $569,273 $1,725,190 $10,378,717 2000 $931,609 $3,653,296 $28,738,549 2001 $784,914 $2,735,152 $19,507,508 2002 $712,224 $2,333,103 $17,361,653 2004 $820,109 $2,974,824 $22,691,819 2005 $925,657 $3,549,692 $27,975,648 2006 $983,594 $3,812,256 $30,570,215 2007 $1,021,643 $4,024,583 $35,042,705 1980 to 2007 change $638,101 $3,052,254 $29,805,853 Percent change 166.4% 313.9% 569.2% 2000 to 2007 change $90,034 $371,287 $6,304,156 Percent change 9.7% 10.2% 21.9% ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source: Prof. Emmanuel Saez from IRS.
- "The top 400 taxpayers posted an average of $153.7 million in gains each (or a total of $61.5 billion in gains) down from $228.6 million (or a total of $91.4 billion) in 2007. As a result, the average adjusted gross income of the 400 declined nearly 22% to a mere $270.5 million, from a record $344.8 million for 2007. It was still the second highest on record, topping 2006’s average AGI of $263.3 million. The cut-off for making the top 400 in 2008 was AGI of $110 million, down from $139 million in 2007."
Average Itemized Deductions - United States AGI(000)Medical Taxes Interest Contributions Total $15-30 $5,390 $2,270 $5,442 $1,338 $10,306 30-50 4,226 3,112 5,716 1,465 10,938 50-75 4,722 4,428 6,587 1,768 13,194 75-100 6,544 6,171 8,063 2,286 16,896 100-200 12,277 9,758 11,107 3,433 23,870 200+ 32,113 36,076 25,046 16,882 65,871
from: average itemized deductions
irs top 400 http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/07intop400.pdf
mitt romney's teachable moment on capital gains good quotes to counter the anti-capgains tax rhetoric
In 2010, the average person with income under $200,000 had a capital loss, not a gain. Only the top 10 percent had gains on average, and people earning over $1 million had $258 billion of the $261 billion of net gains reported on tax returns. That is 97% of the gains went to people earning over $1 million. In 2008, Janet Novack reports, the richest 400 taxpayers–income over $110 million–earned 13.1% of capital gains.
http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/63740/incomeinequality00feen.pdf?sequence=1
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html#table3
http://www.measuringworth.com/calculators/uscompare/
peoples guide to federal budget
http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/american_income_taxation.htm
http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2006prel.pdf
http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/index.html
Percetile Labor Capital Transfer 10th $4,615.4 $601.8 $5,212.7 30th $18,173.1 $3,836.5 $7,442.3 50th $35,277.8 $8,092.6 $6,388.9 70th $67,109.0 $13,597.2 $4,834.1 88.5th $110,299.4 $24,347.3 $3,592.8 97.5th $148,421.1 $67,333.3 $3,789.5 100th $594,545.5 $535,454.5 $6,545.5
http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saezJEEA-PP05us-canada.pdf
