- Joined
- Oct 12, 2006
- Messages
- 14,518
- Reaction score
- 3,438
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
so anonymous sources vs an irs linked explanation of income. from a debate perspective, you need to pick it up a bit.
they have to claim the the value of the medals as income, so your reply is not accurate
1. a very nominal amount
2. you can still offset the income by expense, which will easily more than offset
3. Why are Republicans wasting everyone's time with yet another piece of trivial legislation? Oh yes, I forgot, they have no real ideas of their own except to cut taxes in all circumstances (good economies, bad economies, morning, noon or evening... in their view tax cuts fix everything)
This is how innocent little political pandering proposals leads to this...
It's hard to reach a consensus on the exact size of the Internal Revenue Code, but lots of folks have tried.
Congressional speeches over the years have offered various ways to visualize the enormity of the tax code:
"One million words and nearly seven times the length of the Bible"
"The income tax code and its associated regulations contain almost 5.6 million words"
"At 1.3 million pages it is twice the length of Tolstoy's War and Peace"
:lol:
I mean I wouldn't support the bill that would exempt it from income tax. I would, however, say that every single nickel spent by the family during that year be deducted from the award -- which, I would think, would put most recipients in the position of having to pay no tax at all.
We exempt all sorts of things to incentivise them. This should be one of them IMO. The small number of winners doesn't account for much treasury income anyway.
It should be treated as income in my opinion. I somewhat agree with you that they should get deductions for that since our society has deductions, however, I think do not think that anyone should ever get any deductions.
Fame, thousands of dollars in prize money, and potentially millions in endorsements is incentive enough. Not ot mention the incentive of competitive success alone.
No need to complicate the tax code further with this stupid laws playing favorites in one sector over the other.
I disagree. In fact, that's the reason for incentivising. It's a loss leader for us (retail term, a deeply discounted item that sells highly marked up items). The business it generates brings in far more treasury income.
So you want income taxes on gross revenue? That is not that way income tax works as income, but definition, is gross revenue less the expenses of producing that revenue. Do you want business taxes computed on the gross? That would really put a damper on economic development as new businesses would be paying taxes before they really even made money. Not a good idea.
Perhaps you are thinking of sales and VAT taxes, which are levied on gross amounts.
1. the value of the medals is pretty nominal;
2. you can still offset this nominal income by the major expense of getting there; and
3. Why are Republicans wasting everyone's time with yet another piece of trivial legislation? I thought they were concerned about jobs? Oh yes, I forgot, they haven't a clue how to fix the economy and they have no real ideas of their own except to cut taxes in all circumstances (good economies, bad economies, morning, noon or evening... in their view tax cuts fix everything).
If it weren't for trivial legislation, we would have no legislation at all. Nice job 119th congress, the most inept in US history.
if they didnt make any money then they wouldnt have anything to tax and it would not be appliciable. That statement aside I do believe that every person and business should pay a flat tax without deductions. Everyone should pay X% of their gross income. I know most do not agree with me.
I'm not sure that value of a medal is minimal. The cost may be minimal, but the value is a different story. Value would depend on the particular significance of a medal.
A historic baseball caught by a fan is not worth a few bucks, but the collector value, and is taxed that value. At least that is my understanding. May be that a medal is the same. Any thoughts?
Your third point seems to be a good start for a new thread, of a continuation of the several already started on the same subject.
An expense is a deduction. You have to have deductions to calculate net income. Now, on personal returns there a schedule A deductions, which are not generally expenses associated with income production. My guess is that is what you are talking about.
OTH, Schedule C, D and E deductions are expenses associated with income production. You must have these deductions to calculate income.
I understand what you are saying. If you own a business and as a business owner you make 100,000 in sales. If you paid 30,000 in materials, 15,000 in labor and 10,000 in other operating fees you thing the business should only pay taxes on 45,000. I disagree. They should pay taxes on $100,000. When you start making exceptions people start exploiting them.
An expense is a deduction. You have to have deductions to calculate net income. Now, on personal returns there a schedule A deductions, which are not generally expenses associated with income production. My guess is that is what you are talking about.
OTH, Schedule C, D and E deductions are expenses associated with income production. You must have these deductions to calculate income.
I understand what you are saying. If you own a business and as a business owner you make 100,000 in sales. If you paid 30,000 in materials, 15,000 in labor and 10,000 in other operating fees you thing the business should only pay taxes on 45,000. I disagree. They should pay taxes on $100,000. When you start making exceptions people start exploiting them.
Do you not understand anything about economics?
I understand what you are saying. If you own a business and as a business owner you make 100,000 in sales. If you paid 30,000 in materials, 15,000 in labor and 10,000 in other operating fees you thing the business should only pay taxes on 45,000. I disagree. They should pay taxes on $100,000. When you start making exceptions people start exploiting them.
Do you not understand anything about economics?
An expense is a deduction. You have to have deductions to calculate net income. Now, on personal returns there a schedule A deductions, which are not generally expenses associated with income production. My guess is that is what you are talking about.
OTH, Schedule C, D and E deductions are expenses associated with income production. You must have these deductions to calculate income.
My argument stands, your really can't say you are against ALL deductions....
I understand what you are saying. If you own a business and as a business owner you make 100,000 in sales. If you paid 30,000 in materials, 15,000 in labor and 10,000 in other operating fees you thing the business should only pay taxes on 45,000. I disagree. They should pay taxes on $100,000. When you start making exceptions people start exploiting them.
I approve of any step towards eliminating taxes on income.
this link was refuted on page one
this link was refuted on page one