Jackson, Ms is jacked up (Merged) (2 Viewers)

[guidomerkinsrules]

Wisconsin is discussing moving to a flat tax. Thoughts?

Aren’t the poor punished enough?

 

[DaveXA]

Aren’t the poor punished enough?

Well, you can always exempt up to a certain amount before taxes kick in, like the first $50k/year. Above that would be a net win since generally top income earners pay a lower effective rate than middle class earners. Marginal rates are higher for top earners, but never pay that rate unless they have an idiot prepping their taxes.

 

[DaveXA]

Wisconsin is discussing moving to a flat tax. Thoughts?

I don't really have an issue with it as long as it's enforced properly and at the state level as long as you exempt lower income earners. At the federal level, I don't see that ever happening. Too much money made and changing hands. There are an awful lot of people content to keep the status quo at the federal level, so I don't see an overhaul of the US tax code happening.

 

[Semper]

Aren’t the poor punished enough?

I really don’t know. It seems fair to me. My daughter is constantly getting everything back at the end of the year. Last couple years over 5k. The guy talking about it on the radio said that 31 other states including all the states surrounding Wisconsin are flat tax states.

 

[tenordas]

You want fair? Tax all income the same within a bracketed tax system like we have. Eliminate deductinos and preferntial treatment for anything other than long term property gains and the world will be a better place.

Sure, eliminate deductions and just watch how well that goes.

Charitable organizations rely on those tax deductions because usually they account for 75-90%, sometimes even 100%, of their budgets. Not just things like Goodwill and the Salvation Army, but medical and scientific research, performing arts, museums, etc., etc. All of them only continue to exist because of the corporate donations they receive, which are given by those corporations because of the tax deductions.

Eliminating deductions sounds like a simple, direct answer, but it is anything but that. It would be a disaster for the economy because thousands and thousands of people are employed by those charities, and they would all be out of a job very quickly. Not to mention the hole it would create in innovations lost due to lack of funding.

 

[brandon8283]

Sure, eliminate deductions and just watch how well that goes.

Charitable organizations rely on those tax deductions because usually they account for 75-90%, sometimes even 100%, of their budgets. Not just things like Goodwill and the Salvation Army, but medical and scientific research, performing arts, museums, etc., etc. All of them only continue to exist because of the corporate donations they receive, which are given by those corporations because of the tax deductions.

Eliminating deductions sounds like a simple, direct answer, but it is anything but that. It would be a disaster for the economy because thousands and thousands of people are employed by those charities, and they would all be out of a job very quickly. Not to mention the hole it would create in innovations lost due to lack of funding.

The increase in the standard deduction a few years back basically made charitable contributions irrelevant as a deduction for most typical income earners.

 

[dtc]

Sure, eliminate deductions and just watch how well that goes.

Charitable organizations rely on those tax deductions because usually they account for 75-90%, sometimes even 100%, of their budgets. Not just things like Goodwill and the Salvation Army, but medical and scientific research, performing arts, museums, etc., etc. All of them only continue to exist because of the corporate donations they receive, which are given by those corporations because of the tax deductions.

Eliminating deductions sounds like a simple, direct answer, but it is anything but that. It would be a disaster for the economy because thousands and thousands of people are employed by those charities, and they would all be out of a job very quickly. Not to mention the hole it would create in innovations lost due to lack of funding.

It would also allow the nominal rate of taxation to be lowered with relatively little change in revenue except to those at the top of the hill who should and would pay more than what I do as a percentage of their income.

And, if you need a tax break to be charitable then you're doing it wrong and the system is wrong.

 

[dtc]

You own stock? So you are part of the problem then?

That's dumb. Sure, i own stock, but I'm not risking money to provide jobs. I'm investing with a hope of return. and that passive income shouldn't be taxed at a lower rate than that which we pay on labor.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

Eliminating deductions sounds like a simple, direct answer, but it is anything but that.

i think that's true of so many things - simplifying a chaotic system has an inherent logic to it - but i think we WAY over value the Occam's Razor idea. it really has limited real world application

 

[CoolBrees]

To second @dtc, the two largest tax reduction vehicles are real estate and capital gain vs income

Neither of these has created jobs.

In fact for every musk and Bezos there are like 500 investment bankers who create no business, just money off interest and fees on transactions.

Large Real estate deals don’t create jobs (this is my world btw) They are all temporary workers who are not part of the labor counts for unemployment. Union Carpenters get laid off all of the time but aren’t counted as unemployed.

But that really isn’t the real estate taxes that I (and I assume dtc) are talking about. Real estate depreciation on unused or underused properties is where the big deductions live.

Do you know there is a calculator that apartment building owners use to know how many apartments they will intentionally keep vacant, in order to write the whole building off?

Back when I was on a paycheck and making in the 100’s I paid through the nose. Would have to save just for the EoY payment. Now that I invested in real estate instead of the market, I don’t pay nearly enough taxes; I receive refunds every year that are substantial. I get back more than some earn in 6 mos. and my rate is next to nothing because of write downs on my properties.

My brother is a dentist / oral surgeon. He made close to 7 figures but paid almost 33% until I told him to buy the 8 office, medical building he is in and evict half his tenants. Now he clears $20k in refunds now and his investment property has almost doubled in value. To recap - he pays tens of thousands less due to depreciating an asset that has doubled in value. Sounds totally crooked? That’s because it is; but it is the law. For rich people.

Imagine owning 400 - Or 4000 properties. You are going to end up paying like 12% at most on your other investments. These deductions put you in or near refund world no matter how much you made. It’s how billionaires pay a nominal rate.

 

[tenordas]

The increase in the standard deduction a few years back basically made charitable contributions irrelevant as a deduction for most typical income earners.

Yes, but I'm talking about corporate donors and donations from millionaire (and billionaire) individuals. That's a completely different animal than typical income earners.

 

[SystemShock]

That's dumb

You just can't help yourself, can you?

Sure, i own stock, but I'm not risking money to provide jobs. I'm investing with a hope of return. and that passive income shouldn't be taxed at a lower rate than that which we pay on labor.

However you'd like to rationalize it, you asserted that stock-backed corporations are the problem. You own stock that backs corporations. Therefore, you are part of the problem.

You also asserted the stock market is gambling, but now say you are not risking money. The corporations you back with your stock purchases, do they have employees?

 

[dtc]

You just can't help yourself, can you?

However you'd like to rationalize it, you asserted that stock-backed corporations are the problem. You own stock that backs corporations. Therefore, you are part of the problem.

You also asserted the stock market is gambling, but now say you are not risking money. The corporations you back with your stock purchases, do they have employees?

Investing in stocks is not investing in companies. It's buying a financial instrument with no ties to employees. I'm not backing companies. I'm gambling on the value of their stock.

 

[SystemShock]

Investing in stocks is not investing in companies.

It very much is. Come on.

It's buying a financial instrument with no ties to employees. I'm not backing companies. I'm gambling on the value of their stock.

Right.

 

[ChrisinNOLA]

Most Violent Cities in America 2024

worldpopulationreview.com

1. St. Louis, MO (2,082)
2. Detroit, MI (2,057)
3. Baltimore, MD (2,027)
4. Memphis, TN (2,003)
5. Little Rock, AR (1,634)
6. Milwaukee, WI (1,597)
7. Rockford, IL (1,588)
8. Cleveland, OH (1,557)
9. Stockton, CA (1,415)
10. Albuquerque, NM (1,369)
11. Springfield, MO (1,339)
12. Indianapolis, IN (1,334)
13. Oakland, CA (1,299)
14. San Bernardino, CA (1,291)
15. Anchorage, AK (1,203)
16. Nashville, TN (1,138)
17. Lansing, MI (1,136)
18. New Orleans, LA (1,121)
19. Minneapolis, MN (1,101)
20. Chicago, IL (1,099)

Hey we lost the #1 spot? NOLA is slowly getting safer?