- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
- Messages
- 34,951
- Reaction score
- 16,311
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
I support this 100% of the way. How could one not support it?
Most of them serve no legitimate purpose in the tax code, and they're just handouts to some special interest or another. I mean, does the federal government really have any interest in encouraging employers to include commute costs in the employee's compensation? Or encouraging people to take out mortgages they can't afford? Or encouraging biomass fuels? If so, are those goals worth the cost? These itemized deductions are virtually indistinguishable from traditional government spending (except they're usually far less efficient at actually helping people).
You can't tax the gross income. It won't work. How many times do you have to told that?
Example:
a business earns a gross income of $100,000 a year.
The business spends approximately $80,000 on operating costs. (payroll, equipment, repairs, etc.)
That company falls into the 34% tax bracket, per the U.S. tax code, which means they will have to pay $34,000 in taxes with your new and improved tax code.
$80,000 + $34,000 = $114,000 and the company only makes $100,000 to begin with.
I would love for you to explain to us how that's supposed to be a good idea, unless your mission is to destroy private businesses, that is.
You've simplified the tax code, alright...there won't be anyone left to tax! :lamo
Furthermore, they needlessly complicate the tax code and greatly increase compliance costs. If we're going to have any deductions in the tax code, they should be used VERY sparingly. About the only ones I'd allow would be charitable deductions and the Earned Income Tax Credit.
There are some things I would change, but on the whole I think this says what needs to be said. We can't keep fixing our public woes with duct tape, and everyone needs to do their part, not just the lower and middle classes.
I would add vocational training to the education list and try to create a centralized job placement system. People want to work, and need to work. We should do whatever we can get them the training they need, and then get them into a job. The system we have now with finding ads and help wanted lists, resumes, and interviews... It's an awful system. We need something much more comprehensive, and much more centralized. We need to get people to the jobs.
The lower class and most of the middle class don't even pay taxes.
yes they do. We've posted those links many times showing your error.
Actually, they do serve a purpose. Without them, there's no way that a business could stay alive. Allow me to post the example that I posted for Boo.
The first step would be to learn the difference between a deduction and a credit.
It will never cease to amaze me how people, who claim to be so much smarter, more educated and more sophisticated than the rest of us can't understand the purpose of deducting the cost of doing business.
You do realize that you wouldn't have your high-speed 6 figure job, if not for those deductions. Yes?
Lower class persons don't pay any income taxes. Sorry for your fail.
The lower class and most of the middle class don't even pay taxes.
I'm not talking about sole proprietorships here; the way they are taxed is mostly OK with me. Basically, the IRS treats their *net* profit the same way it treats personal income. So you aren't taxed on your gross revenue, just what you make above and beyond your expenses. And if you operate at a loss, you can carry it over to apply it to next year's taxes.
What I'm referring to are the ITEMIZED deductions...all of those things in the tax code that the government (supposedly) put in there in order to get people to behave a certain way. While I'm not inherently opposed to economic nudges like this, when they're included in the income tax code they rarely have the desired result. For example, the mortgage interest deduction is expensive, serves no purpose, and is counterproductive (i.e. it helps encourage real estate bubbles). Ditto for the deduction on employer-provided health insurance...it's expensive, serves no purpose, and is counterproductive (i.e. it confines people to jobs they hate, reduces worker productivity, and reduces social mobility).
We should eliminate nearly all of these deductions.
Thanks, I'll get right on that. :roll:
My point is that the entire tax code could be drastically simplified, and the vast majority of these things could be eliminated entirely...exemptions, exclusions, deductions, AND credits. I could write a better tax code in 2 pages in MS Word, than what we currently have.
The cost of doing business as a sole proprietorship or partnership is not really an itemized deduction (it's a separate tax form entirely). Your profit is treated the same as your income would be, if you were working for someone else. As it should be.
And why is that apdst?
but even in making that allegation you engage in the intellectual dishonesty of moving the goal posts. First it was that lower classes pay no taxes
.......... then you shift to income taxes when called out on it by Boo. Please stick to one.
Dude! How do you think that net profit is arrived at?
I could write a better one with one sentence: you'll pay X% on your net income. End of story.
Well, actually there are some: state and local taxes/fees. I write off my heavy road use tax that I file on form 2290. Yes, I write off my federal tax on my 1040. I write off the mileage I rack up on my personal vehicle. I also rent my personal vehicle to my business and write that off, too. Interest payments. Without those deductions, there's no way I could afford to stay in business.
Lower class persons don't pay any income taxes. Sorry for your fail.
apdst said:The lower class and most of the middle class don't even pay taxes.
Revenue minus expenses. Next.
So then you agree with me that we don't need itemized deductions? Why are you arguing the point then?
If those other taxes are part of your cost of doing business, then they'd be included in your expenses (and therefore your taxable net income would be lowered accordingly). Basically, the IRS just tries to make the self-employed pay the same taxes they'd be paying if they were working elsewhere, which is fair as far as I'm concerned.
Not what you said. Allow me to quote:
Since we are having a new budget debate over the debt ceiling how do you all feel about the People's Budget? I firmly support it For the people worried about the debt it cuts the deficit by 5.6 trillion. Here is the link: Congressional Progressive Caucus : FY2012 Progressive Budget
Right and itemized deductions = expenses.
You know how many middle income people you would hurt without itemized deductions?
Is that why the self employed have to pay the self employment tax and don't qualify for tax credits like people, working elsewhere?
This is way, way too sensible of a plan to ever have a chance in Washington.
Thank God that there are enough people to see the idiocy of this plan, for it to become reality.
It's nothing more than a list of age old Libbo talking points.
Thank God that there are enough people to see the idiocy of this plan, for it to become reality.
It's nothing more than a list of age old Libbo talking points.
Why is it idiotic, by chance?
Do you really think that using a nasty and demeaning nickname for people makes you seem more credible? And before the obvious and stupid answer, the tea partiers themselves coined the term teabagger, without knowing the testicular meaning for it.
Right! And the discussion is about income taxes. I'm not the one moving the goal posts.