Jackson, Ms is jacked up (Merged) (6 Viewers)

[DaveXA]

That's going to depend on how good his accountants are.

But seriously, in principle, I don't think there is anything wrong with allowing tax breaks when someone risks their own money in a business venture that creates jobs and that has a positive economic impact in an entire region.

In the case of Bill Gates, he may pay $0.00 in personal taxes, but the tax revenue that Microsoft creates and the number of people it employs, directly and indirectly, I think more than makes up for him not paying a 40% personal tax rate.

And (a very simplistic example to make a point) if the government wants to go after Bill Gates' money, with what he's worth, he could simply shut everything down, maybe get taxed once, then just cruise multiple lifespans without paying a single dime in taxes again, but this time, with no tax revenue or jobs from Microsoft.

Maybe, but there's more than a handful of billionaires in the US, and quite a few who make 8 figures+. They don't all have the impact of a Bill Gates and don't have the same levers he has, but they still have accounting and tax strategies that allow them to reduce their effective rates to near 10% or less. It's a racket and an injustice that the very rich pay a lower percentage than most who make less than $200k. I'm not necessarily opposed to tax breaks on some things, but not so much that you're reducing effective rates to 10% or less. Maybe set a floor, like 20 or 25% effective rate to ensure everyone is paying their share.

I have the same problem with the corporate tax structure that allows large companies to go years without paying corporate taxes. They need to contribute more than they actually do. There needs to be a minimum tax for companies above a certain level of revenues. I don't know what it should be, but it shouldn't be zero.

Sales taxes are regressive and affect the poor much more than the wealthy.

Not if it's a targeted sales tax. Many localities/counties have local sales taxes that don't apply to food items, or items that disproportionately affect the poor. Sales taxes would be a far more efficient method of collecting taxes, but would never happen because there's entire industries that love our tax system the way it is now.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

Maybe, but there's more than a handful of billionaires in the US, and quite a few who make 8 figures+. They don't all have the impact of a Bill Gates and don't have the same levers he has, but they still have accounting and tax strategies that allow them to reduce their effective rates to near 10% or less. It's a racket and an injustice that the very rich pay a lower percentage than most who make less than $200k. I'm not necessarily opposed to tax breaks on some things, but not so much that you're reducing effective rates to 10% or less. Maybe set a floor, like 20 or 25% effective rate to ensure everyone is paying their share.

I have the same problem with the corporate tax structure that allows large companies to go years without paying corporate taxes. They need to contribute more than they actually do. There needs to be a minimum tax for companies above a certain level of revenues. I don't know what it should be, but it shouldn't be zero.


Not if it's a targeted sales tax. Many localities/counties have local sales taxes that don't apply to food items, or items that disproportionately affect the poor. Sales taxes would be a far more efficient method of collecting taxes, but would never happen because there's entire industries that love our tax system the way it is now.

Even correcting for poverty, a sales tax takes more from a working class paycheck than it does middle class which pays more than upperclass

 

[DaveXA]

Even correcting for poverty, a sales tax takes more from a working class paycheck than it does middle class which pays more than upperclass

In theory maybe, in practice, not so much. You'll have a lower sales tax rate across the board than what the working class and middle class currently pay in taxes, so they actually both benefit. There are some families with a negative effective rate and they'll no doubt be affected, but there are ways the government can assist those through applying for a sales tax credit or refund each year when they qualify for it. And you reduce time and money lost prepping taxes for everyone and the federal government ultimately collects more from sales taxes and saves money by reducing the footprint of the IRS substantially. And there would still be the existing programs, i.e. Medicaid, SSI/SSDI etc to assist those who either are unable to work or underemployed.

There still would be a capital gains tax on investments plus corporate taxes which would supplement the sales tax.

And fwiw, I'd long been opposed to a national sales tax, but I'd be supportive of it with the right guardrails and let's face it, the current setup leaves a whole lot to be desired.

 

[SystemShock]

Maybe, but there's more than a handful of billionaires in the US, and quite a few who make 8 figures+. They don't all have the impact of a Bill Gates and don't have the same levers he has, but they still have accounting and tax strategies that allow them to reduce their effective rates to near 10% or less. It's a racket and an injustice that the very rich pay a lower percentage than most who make less than $200k. I'm not necessarily opposed to tax breaks on some things, but not so much that you're reducing effective rates to 10% or less. Maybe set a floor, like 20 or 25% effective rate to ensure everyone is paying their share.

I have the same problem with the corporate tax structure that allows large companies to go years without paying corporate taxes. They need to contribute more than they actually do. There needs to be a minimum tax for companies above a certain level of revenues. I don't know what it should be, but it shouldn't be zero.

When you do your tax returns, do you take the standard deduction, or itemize?

 

[DaveXA]

When you do your tax returns, do you take the standard deduction, or itemize?

I've done both in the past, but all but a few years were standard deductions. I probably will end up itemizing this year because we bought a house last year and will probably be better off itemizing.

 

[SystemShock]

I've done both in the past, but all but a few years were standard deductions. I probably will end up itemizing this year because we bought a house last year and will probably be better off itemizing.

Just like you can itemize, so can everyone, including the rich and corporations. Rich people don't take standard deductions, either do corporations, or medium size businesses. Small business owners would be stupid to not itemize.

I am going assume you don't pay your tax bracket rate either, because of the deductions to income you declare: kids, mortgage, etc... well, that is not different from what rich people and corporations do; obviously the scale is different, and you probably don't get tax breaks because you don't open a business that'll generate 400 jobs in your community, but the principle is the same.

I know a lot of people have this image of rich people just living the high life flying around private jets and sailing their yachts around the Mediterranean sipping expensive champagne, but more often than not, that is not the case, and I don't think it is right to take money from them just because they have it.

 

[dtc]

Just like you can itemize, so can everyone, including the rich and corporations. Rich people don't take standard deductions, either do corporations, or medium size businesses. Small business owners would be stupid to not itemize.

I am going assume you don't pay your tax bracket rate either, because of the deductions to income you declare: kids, mortgage, etc... well, that is not different from what rich people and corporations do; obviously the scale is different, and you probably don't get tax breaks because you don't open a business that'll generate 400 jobs in your community, but the principle is the same.

I know a lot of people have this image of rich people just living the high life flying around private jets and sailing their yachts around the Mediterranean sipping expensive champagne, but more often than not, that is not the case, and I don't think it is right to take money from them just because they have it.

It's not taking money from them because they have it. IT's collecting revenue to cover the costs of government and it's ridiculous that those who have and make the most should pay the least.

I cannot imagine any justification for someone who makes 1000 times what I do paying less in taxes. The tax system has been corrupted by politicians who have been bought by the rich and we have been conned into thinking that one type of income is somehow better than another.

 

[DaveXA]

Just like you can itemize, so can everyone, including the rich and corporations. Rich people don't take standard deductions, either do corporations, or medium size businesses. Small business owners would be stupid to not itemize.

I am going assume you don't pay your tax bracket rate either, because of the deductions to income you declare: kids, mortgage, etc... well, that is not different from what rich people and corporations do; obviously the scale is different, and you probably don't get tax breaks because you don't open a business that'll generate 400 jobs in your community, but the principle is the same.

I know a lot of people have this image of rich people just living the high life flying around private jets and sailing their yachts around the Mediterranean sipping expensive champagne, but more often than not, that is not the case, and I don't think it is right to take money from them just because they have it.

Maybe it's because I haven't stated as much in a while, but I've actually prepped taxes for numerous people, both wealthy and those not so wealthy. I've always done my own taxes. Literally no one pays the nominal rates for the tax bracket they're in. And nominal rates for the purposes of this discussion are useless. What matters is the effective rate.

The problem has always been that rich people have access to tax accountants and lawyers that allow them to take advantage of the tax shelters and breaks that aren't available to those in the middle who make too much to qualify for lower income credits and refunds, amd yet can't qualify for those shelters and breaks available to wealthy individuals. There's no reason wealthy individuals making millions to be paying what amounts to a 10% effective rate when those in the middle are paying closer 15 and sometimes 20% effective rates.

I don't have a problem with itemizing. You should take advantage of whatever is legally allowed. The problem isn't with people taking advantage of what's available to them. The problem is with a very inefficient tax code that is ultimately very favorable to those in the top tax brackets. That's on the government. Of course getting into the specifics of what party has the right idea gets to politics, but in a general sense, I think there's a better, more efficient way to collect taxes than the convoluted tax code that exists currently.

 

[CoolBrees]

If you think that wealthy people are using the same tax breaks in ownership that regular people do; well you’re wrong.


There are hundreds of carve outs for real estate alone that the average person couldn’t touch. And this are the big ones. Depreciation, ledger write downs, and the losses from unused/unrented space - most of which is left vacant for this very reason - you can cover the taxes in a 10 unit building by renting 8 and taking the loss in the other two at average rent for the zip code.

Just because tax breaks are available to everyone doesn’t mean they are available to everyone. Unless everyone to you own apartment complexes and strip malls of course.

ETA- sales tax is absolutely the worst form of taxation and is as regressive a tax as you can find. I am so glad I live in a state without sales tax.

 

[Eeyore]

We should run the tax code back to how it was when America was great. Maybe the 1950's?

 

[DaveXA]

We should run the tax code back to how it was when America was great. Maybe the 1950's?

That would be the definition of going backwards, lol.

 

[ChrisinNOLA]

California has water issues too

Facing ‘dead pool’ risk, California braces for painful water cuts from Colorado River

As reservoirs decline on the Colorado River, California water agencies are under pressure to shoulder a substantial part of the inevitable cuts.

www.latimes.com

 

[itztime]

Welp, Colorado was the first snd biggest state to legalize the open use of pot. They are now the biggest abusers of cocaine. So just me thinking, maybe there is some correlation?

But if people voted to legalize something, a governing body that overwrites the vote of the people, should be voted out as soon as the next election. That is just unbelievable, in any case.

Unfortunately there was a loop hole in state law regarding voter initiatives with congressional districts, had the state NOT lost a congressional district the vote would have stood up and no loop hole, though the MS Supreme Court found 6-3 that voter initiative was no good. So it’s NOT like the state just came in and said sorry folks you can’t have medical marijuana , it went to court brought on by a mayor from Madison, MS who is an odd bird to be nice, one of her reasons was she didn’t want to see medical marijuana advertisement all in her town, despite CBD advertisements with a marijuana leaf in her town.

The legislature did indeed give the citizens medical marijuana, took some time but citizens did get what they voted on. Now there were some changes with the biggest being you could now only get 4 ounces a month versus the original 5 ounces, so down an ounce. The other change was they allowed ever municipality a one time opt out chance or they would never have the chance again to opt out of the sale of medical marijuana within there municipality with a deadline, that deadline has long passed with very few cities opting out.

 

[SystemShock]

It's not taking .... IT's collecting revenue

It didn't work for George Bush Sr., it's not going to work for you.

I cannot imagine any justification for someone who makes 1000 times what I do paying less in taxes.

That's easy. Paycheck vs investment/job creation/revenue inflow.
The person that makes $100,000 a year vs the person who creates 1000 jobs that pay $100,000 a year.

The tax system has been corrupted by politicians who have been bought by the rich and we have been conned into thinking that one type of income is somehow better than another.

That is a great statement, if you were running for office.

Now, I am not going to say that our system is devoid of flaws, or that it benefits certain types of businesses, sure it does.

However, some income IS better than other. Some income is generated through millions and billions of dollars moving through the U.S. economy, while other is just a paycheck from a 9-to-5 job.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

That's easy. Paycheck vs investment/job creation/revenue inflow.
The person that makes $100,000 a year vs the person who creates 1000 jobs that pay $100,000 a year.

And what if those 1000 people work in industries that create over $100k of environmental/climate damage or decreased housing or predatory finance or lawsuits or any of dozens of other net loss occupations?