Are we gonna bew allowed a TAX debate ?

mplspug

People who focus on one part of the proposal and dismiss it because of class warfare and political affiliation, that's the kind of ignorance that disturbs me.



Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

dave44

mplspug wrote: »

People who focus on one part of the proposal and dismiss it because of class warfare and political affiliation, that's the kind of ignorance that disturbs me.



Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Ditto.

Gary S

You want to save social security? Stop giving it to people who never contributed. Stop giving it to people who claim to be disabled. I would send out a army of investigators to check everyone on disability and anyone scaring the system would lose all benefits and be ineligible to collect any benefit from the government until all monies they collected were returned. I also think that if you come from another country you should not be eligible for social security until you have paid in the required quarters
And I also believe earned tax credits should be eliminated. How can getting a bigger return than you paid in be fair to anyone?

cadman

Bimini Twisted wrote: »

Great discussion on preferences, theoreticals, and if only's, but,... what is the opinion here of the plan currently being proposed by the powers that control most aspects of our government?

After all, it's the plan on the table, and those proposing it, and their supporters, should be responsible for it's defense, no?

Personally, I think it's a giveaway to the wealthy and hoses the middle class, and are we really stupid enough to believe that trickle down nonsense again?

It is not possible, yet, to know how it impacts any income group. There are no income brackets for the rates, we don't know what deductions are going away, The doubling of the standard deduction will help a lot of low income people who don't typically itemize. Will there be a 39% rate added on? Too many variables to determine anything at this point.

But much like the republicans hated all things Obama, the Democrats will hate all things Trump. The smart move is to use this to negotiate real tax reform and solve social security. But that won't happen since we still have a "my way or no way" attitude in congress.

Tarponator wrote: »

Of course it is. Look who proposed it and who is supporting it.
.

Perfect example, dismiss the proposal based on who created it rather than look at the details when they come out.

mplspug

So removing mortgage tax d eductions ARE a part of the proposal. Great. Been leasing since I moved and now another tax deduction will be removed. I've basically 1099 EZ my whole life because I've not had any deductions to make it worth filing a normal tax form.

But as I said before, it won't fly and it will be removed.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

cadman

gettinwet wrote: »

No I'm gettinwet. And yes, but very small amount per $ - it would just be an expense like any other to be factored into the business model.

You can't tax Gross revenue. Most businesses operate on less than 5% net revenue. You start taxing gross and they go out of business.

You do not understand how a business operates.

cadman

gettinwet wrote: »

Okay, then what is the difference between 20% net tax on $5K profits vs. 5% gross tax on $20K revenue? One difference will be the elimination of the gaggle of lawyers, questionable business expenses, offshoring, and tax shelters that turn that $5K profit into a loss as so commonly seen these days so the government gets squat. This way everyone funds the government up front - no hiding/cheating. It is just a another cost of doing business - and everyone lives by the same rules - competes on the same playing field.

The gross is likely to be a lot higher than 5 times net revenue for many companies. Taxing gross does not work. 5% of $500,00 0 is $25,000. 20% of $100,000 is $20,000. You cost me $5000.

Now let's go back to 2009 when my gross was $300,000, but my net was a loss of $15,0000. You expect me to pay $15,000 in taxes when I borrowed $50,000 to keep a float and not go bankrupt. Many small businesses during the start up period and recessions and such actually lose money. But you want to tax their losses.

Try running a business once and get back to me.

Taxing gross profits would move every large corporation offshore. Why would they even do business in this country to lose money. Very few companies have questionable expenses. Again, your lack of how business operates is the problem. If you use a CPA and most companies of any do, they will either do a review or an audit yearly to be sure your expenses are legitimate. Honest companies aren't hiding or cheating. If the company is cheating they will just find another way to cheat. Punishing honest companies won't solve the problem.

cadman

gettinwet wrote: »

Works for retirement accounts but not large estates e.g. Bill Gates. A lot of the wealth is held in stocks and bonds. Shouldn't be allowed to hide the growth generated by it.

Until you turn those stocks into cash, there is no income to report. Nobody is hiding anything.

Tarponator

cadman wrote: »

Perfect example, dismiss the proposal based on who created it rather than look at the details when they come out.

Except, of course, you neglected to quote the rest of the post (and my other posts), where I did exactly that.

cadman

Gary S wrote: »

You want to save social security? Stop giving it to people who never contributed. Stop giving it to people who claim to be disabled. I would send out a army of investigators to check everyone on disability and anyone scaring the system would lose all benefits and be ineligible to collect any benefit from the government until all monies they collected were returned. I also think that if you come from another country you should not be eligible for social security until you have paid in the required quarters
And I also believe earned tax credits should be eliminated. How can getting a bigger return than you paid in be fair to anyone?

No one is eligible for social security unless they pay in the required quarters. Even disabled must meet the requirement for so many quarters worked. Some people who are disabled get SSI, which s not social security and funded through the general budget.

Tarponator

fins4me wrote: »

Why grow your enterprise if it is at risk of being taken away once it reaches a certain scope?

Thanks for the explanation -- that makes more sense. In other words, if your business is worth like $4m, why grow it over the estate tax minimum.

Generally speaking, I don't really allow taxes to drive my behavior, but I do understand how others could view this differently.

cadman

Tarponator wrote: »

Except, of course, you neglected to quote the rest of the post (and my other posts), where I did exactly that.

Since the final proposal has not been presented, how can you look at the details and evaluate it?

mustang190

cadman wrote: »

Since the final proposal has not been presented, how can you look at the details and evaluate it?

Your right.
And also about taxing gross revenues.
It would destroy the transportation industry.
All of this tax talk and there are no proposals to cut government spending!

cadman

mustang190 wrote: »

Your right.
And also about taxing gross revenues.
It would destroy the transportation industry.
All of this tax talk and there are no proposals to cut government spending!

That really is where they should start. First determine how much revenue is needed and then implement a tax plan to raise that revenue. But that would require looking at reality and making some really tough choices.

Tarponator

cadman wrote: »

Since the final proposal has not been presented, how can you look at the details and evaluate it?

We have been discussing the details -- including the estate tax -- that have been presented.

And I was referring, specifically, in the quote you cited to trickle down economics -- those who have proposed this in the past and the results of those policies once enacted.

Regardless, you make a good point -- which is we don't have all the details yet and it's hard to know for sure.

But let's just say veracity hasn't been the hallmark of anyone in Washington for a long time, and it's worth noting the politicians who don't have those details either are already making proclamations as to who will get the long and the short of this tax reform program.

mplspug

I wish inflation would make a come back.

In any event....

Heatwave

mplspug wrote: »

People who focus on one part of the proposal and dismiss it because of class warfare and political affiliation, that's the kind of ignorance that disturbs me.



Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

It is the only thing that matters. They can twist it however they want. This isn't about helping 99%, it is about making sure the rich get even more. $2000.00 means nothing to a working guy. And political affiliation has zero to do with it from my view.

Anyone of THOSE people could say the same thing to you and Dave as in: People who ignore to focus on no parts of the proposal and like it because they lack to see class warfare and political affiliation, that's the kind of ignorance that disturbs me.

That would not be my statement, but it could come from 98% of the country and be TRUE. If this same type of cut hadn't happened in the past. I might say, OK, go for it. But we have cut for the rich and were told "It would trickle down" "we been told a 3% GDP growth will grow the country and put money in peoples pockets All for naught.
All one had to do is be here, on this site in 05, 06 and listen to the one side tout how great the economy was, how great Bush was doing. Then 90% of those posters were gone in 2008 or somehow twisting it to sound like it was the other sides fault. In that person was the fact that his side would never do no wrong. I voted for reagan, and bush sr, I was tossed in 2000 (so didn't vote). We have money, it isn't me that I am worried about. It is the country and to much disparity... I am going to venture that you, dave or resin are not struggling. You are doing good ? THus not your problem, the poor, struggling worker. ? I am not talking about welfare recipients, or the lazy, or the crooks, I am talking about a guy still making 25 an hour...
Money just keeps changing hands UPWARDS and those that are not part of it and growing their wealth can easily NOT see the picture.

navigator2

Tarponator wrote: »

Your SS contributions weren't taxed in the first place, Menzies. It is income and should be taxed, IMO.

After all, you lazy senior citizen freeloaders need to contribute.

And I could not disagree more that it's the first tax that should be addressed -- but I do understand why as a recent retiree it is your first priority.

Where did you come up with this little nugget of wisdom? Do you have a clue regarding taxation of income? You pay SS based on your gross income capped to a point (less certain things like qualified pension contributions such as 401ks and health care savings contributions). That income was already taxed once. Then it gets taxed again (or included in the computation) when you actually receive the benefits. SS contributions match that were PAID by the employer are the only thing that was never taxed. So you are only half right.

navigator2

cadman wrote: »

Since the final proposal has not been presented, how can you look at the details and evaluate it?

You can't. There is no telling what kind of Frankenstein will result from negotiations.

By the way, love your new avatar. Indian convenience store owner from the Simpsons?:grin

Heatwave

mplspug wrote: »

I wish inflation would make a come back.

In any event....

Me too, with Vengeance.... That can grow the GDP with more fake numbers and send GOLD skyrocketing...

mplspug

Heatwave wrote: »

$2000.00 means nothing to a working guy.

Needs no reply

mplspug

Heatwave wrote: »

Me too, with Vengeance.... That can grow the GDP with more fake numbers and send GOLD skyrocketing...

Silly, we don't need inflation for that. Looks like 3%+ GDP growth is back in America.

dstockwell

gettinwet wrote: »

Taxes aren't just about government revenue - you want to incentivize behavior that results in innovation/sustainable growth. If you have a flat tax some sort of exemptions would have to be made for large capital expenditures, R&D, and such otherwise no one would risk the money over the long term.

If there were no corporate income taxes, there should not be any exemptions, you use what would have been taxes to purchase upgrades or R&D, that should be incentive enough. Why should the government subsidize someones business growth. May as well just keep it the same as it is now.

nuevowavo

navigator2 wrote: »

Then it gets taxed again (or included in the computation) when you actually receive the benefits.

Only if your Adjusted Gross Income + Nontaxable Interest + 1/2 of your Social Security benefits > $32,000 if you file jointly (> $25,000 if you file as individual).

navigator2

nuevowavo wrote: »

Only if your Adjusted Gross Income + Nontaxable Interest + 1/2 of your Social Security benefits > $32,000 if you file jointly (> $25,000 if you file as individual).

(or included in the computation):grin

CountryBumpkin

fins4me wrote: »

They exist on paper and in the fantasies of the taxman and speculators only.

Dang right they exist on paper......as collateral for loans, means of establishing net worth etc...........to say that property or assets
bequeathed to you give you "no realized capital gain" until you sell them........now that would be the "fantasies".

navigator2

CountryBumpkin wrote: »

Dang right they exist on paper......as collateral for loans, means of establishing net worth etc...........to say that property or assets
bequeathed to you give you "no realized capital gain" until you sell them........now that would be the "fantasies".

Unrealized gains are just that. Unrealized.

Margin call anyone? :banghead:Spittingcoffee

mustang190

mplspug wrote: »

Needs no reply

I thought the same thing.
2grand will pay for my fishing vacation in the keys next month!

dragon bait

In an initial analysis of the nine-page framework for tax reform, the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution's Tax Policy Center found that Americans among the top 1% of earners would see the bulk of the plan's benefits, while lower- and middle-class Americans — even most upper-class people — would see few benefits.

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-tax-reform-plan-analysis-study-rich-rates-2017-9

1outlaw

LOL......Both of them Are very biased to the left!