Political Thread #2 Taxes
Rdp77
Posts: 6,715 ✭✭✭✭✭
Here guys. Here’s you a new argument thread.
4
Rdp77
Posts: 6,715 ✭✭✭✭✭
Comments
Taxes are the devil.
I pay taxes. I like roads, teachers, cops, and firemen.
But...are you getting what you paid for?
Some are, especially when you aren't getting what you paid for, when the money is spent in ways it should not be, then requiring more to be taken. But while taxation is grating, I don't believe they are unnecessary, nor unconstitutional, and neither did the Founding Fathers.
State and local, yes, the fed not so much. Talking with a neighbor who administer a fed program who said they frantically spend at the end of the fiscal year, otherwise their budget gets cut.
Also, I find it amusing that on a forum where members are allowed to call each other d*cks, or tell someone to fvck off, without repercussion, that actual discussions, with some differences of opinion, are called arguments.
And at the end of the day we shake hands and send each other crazy stuff. Weird...huh?
Yeah I thought it was interesting hearing people discuss how they'd prefer to be taxed. I don't think anyone was picking a fight. I think sales tax is the way to go personally. Like if we all accept that 30% of everyone's money is getting taxed somehow, no matter what, I'd rather that 30% came out of the money people spent on stuff, instead of the money they earn from work, or what they're already bought (like a house or car). Obviously it doesn't really work like that, since people would buy fewer things and so on, but just broadly speaking I'd prefer a higher sales tax and lower income and property taxes, as opposed to the other way around, assuming I can't just lower the taxes altogether.
I'd prefer Zero property taxes. It is unthinkable that someone could purchase a property, pay for it for 30 years, and have it taken away by the government for not having the means to pay yearly property taxes (in PA, half of which typically pay for schools even though retired people no longer have children in school).
Anyone watch any football this weekend?
10% income tax and 20% import tariff. All else rescinded. Cut spending to match.
Trapped in the People's Communist Republic of Massachusetts.
That's like a VAT. Good theory but it's a tax on the lower incomes. Ultra high income people spend less than 1% of 1% of their earnings on things, while many people working in minimum wage fields typically spent 20 or more percent of their income on stuff.
Funny that corporations get taxed on profit (revenue/income minus expense) and individuals get taxed on income only. Level the playing field, one way or the other, and the problem is solved.
Yeah in my hypothetical world, corporations pay the sales tax whenever they buy something, regardless of whether or not the corporation is profitable. No charitable deductions either. If something gets bought, there's a tax payment, no matter who buys it or why they buy it.
Damn you @Rdp77 😜😜😜
A good cigar and whiskey solve most problems.
It's a fundamental truth that corporations do not pay taxes. They pass on taxes to the consumer, and that will never change. Corporations that are not profitable don't last very long. Similar to property taxes for renters. Renters pay property tax built into their monthly rent. The property owner doesn't just eat the property tax costs, unless they are fiscal morons.
Why no charitable deductions? Do you mean no write-offs for corporations, or no deductions for individuals who make donations?
This thread is superfluously redundant. The Political Discussion thread was also superfluously redundant when it started. The thread that had it all covered in the first place was the You Can't Make This Stuff Up thread because it was a political thread and also because of it's fortuitous title it could handle almost any additional subject you wanted to throw in there.
We need a new .gov agency: The Department or Redundancy Department.
Just as an example.
A lot of charitable deductions are bogus, and I'd rather just get rid of them all, or set a max deduction price, maybe something like $10,000 max per year that's allowed to be deducted per person.
Again though, I'm just talking hypothetically, since simplifying the tax code so that the average American could understand the whole thing would require a revolution.
Umm, OK. I'm not sure if it works that way, but...
I make significant charitable contributions (relative to my income level, I am far from a millionaire), mostly to non-profits who provide direct support to individuals in need. Do you mean I shouldn't be able to deduct that money? Every dollar I give is essentially a dollar not requested to be supplied by the government.
Millionaire can claim 20 million only if has paid the capital gains tax on the appreciation. And then there is the matter of overstating the value:
Penalty
You may be liable for a penalty if you overstate the value or adjusted basis of contributed property.
20% penalty. The penalty is 20% of the amount by which you underpaid your tax because of the overstatement, if:
The value or adjusted basis claimed on your return is 150% or more of the correct amount, and
You underpaid your tax by more than $5,000 because of the overstatement.
40% penalty. The penalty is 40%, rather than 20%, if:
The value or adjusted basis claimed on your return is 200% or more of the correct amount, and
You underpaid your tax by more than $5,000 because of the overstatement.
Edit: link...
https://www.irs.gov/publications/p526#en_US_2023_publink1000229771
Only cash donations should be able to be written off
I know, You're a big dog and I'm on the list.
Let's eat, GrandMa. / Let's eat GrandMa. -- Punctuation saves lives
It'll be fine once the swelling goes down.
This is awesome. I just think the tax code as a whole should be simpler, and some good things such as what you’re doing will have to fall by the wayside to get rid of the bad things such as people giving money to fake charities, or moving it offshore, or whatever else.
For the third time though, I’m not an expert, and this is just my uninformed opinion.
@CalvinAndHobo , I am simply trying to provide some information so your opinion might be more informed.
I do not want those things I am contributing to to go by the wayside, because the government isn't going to pick up the slack, and merely to prevent some few people from manipulating the charitable deductions for their own gain. I believe most people who itemize their deductions because itemization increases their deductions beyond the Federal Standard Deduction are doing so in an honest manner, and simply utilizing the tax code for its intended purpose, which in the case of charitable deductions is to encourage people to be generous. I don't believe we should place too many limits on encouraging generosity.
Not to toot my own horn, but if I accepted the standard deduction, and forwent itemizing, some of the things that would go by the wayside (or be minimized to some extent) are: freeing of women from actual slavery in Africa, providing support to soldiers with traumatic spinal cord injuries, helping soldiers who participated in battle to maintain and enhance their struggling marriages, providing educational and spiritual assistance to underprivileged kids in third-world countries, providing assistance to homeless and drug-addicted people to become productive members of society, and helping women who have decided not to abort their children to have the means to raise them, among other things. I don't believe the government should discourage those things. That is what being allowed to itemize charitable contributions really is. That is why most people give.
Certainly, I would continue to give what I give even if it wasn't deductible, but, why shouldn't it be? Because some people cheat? Audit people who seem to be cheating, and hold them accountable to the extent of the law, but don't limit true generosity, IMO.
I would be OK with doubling the deduction for charitable giving if we shut down government funding of organizations that rely on government funding for their existence. If it's a good idea the people will fund it. If abortion is your holy grail, great, fund it. If you think your neighborhood looks a little bland and would like to bring in some newcomers, great, fund it. Why should some bureaucrat spend your money when that should be your right and responsibility.
Like NASA you mean, or planned parenthood? NPR?
Two outta those three would be a good start.
Don't let him troll you, Todd.
I don't know what you have against NASA but stop it
What if they donate to planned Parenthood?