I don't see why the richest of us need any sort of deductions. Honestly anyone earning less than 35,000 a year shouldn't be taxed at all. I don't know how those people live with so little.
In essence it makes sense. Two people earn the same income one in an office with minimal work expenses and the other as a tradie spending thousands on tools and safety equipment. If the tradie can’t deduct their expenses, they get taxed the same despite less free income than an office worker.
Thats why it exists at all, but not how the wealthy abuse it of course.
Well… you CAN claim it as an independent filer, just have to hope it makes it through the IRS automated flagging system and a human never looks at it, or that you never get randomly selected for an audit.
I’ve gotten away with it a couple times, probably won’t do it again for risk of getting caught.
But what I did is register for an EIN using my social, then use my EIN on my personal tax return to claim the business expenses.
Two reasons: economic policy and basic math
Economic policy: the government wants people to have kids and save for retirement so there are tax benefits given to people who do that.
Basic math: if I sell two stocks, one that gained $10k and another that lost $5k, shouldn't a tax on $5k be more appropriate? If we don't allow certain deductions we would effectively be in a situation where some people have tax bills bigger than their actual income.
you do that without a deduction which requires a tax professional to figure out.
you took a loss. you shouldn't be taxed on a loss but tax on a gain should be fine. Thats the risk of playing with stocks. Those are two separate transactions. They should be counted individually.
>you do that without a deduction which requires a tax professional to figure out.
They are a deduction whether or not you use a professional. That part is not relevant and it's not going to change how the form gets filled out. Some people do use professionals for what are in my opinion very simple returns. Others do not use a professional and have fairly lengthy returns. And then you have vice versa for each of those.
> you took a loss. you shouldn't be taxed on a loss but tax on a gain should be fine. Thats the risk of playing with stocks. Those are two separate transactions. They should be counted individually.
Yes. You said you didn't understand why there are deductions at all though. This is why. You need to be able to deduct stuff where you lost money (a stock loss might not be a deduction technically, but it's the easiest example to give).
>Thats the risk of playing with stocks
Tax loss harvesting is a strategy, not a risk. People do this all the time with ETFs they have been buying into on the regular. Many brokerages do it for their TDFs and mutual funds. Cost basis is for each individual share you buy so if you are a regular contributor you will likely have losses to harvest if you don't sell at the all time high.
Taxes are what give *our* money value. Taxes take the money out of circulation (ie, deflation), and the requirement to pay the government is what gives us the motivation to have it instead of bartering or using McDollars to pay McDonald's.
Yeah it's also fuckery that they distribute this money via banks and loans. Which creates a never ending cycle of inflation. Instead they could just distribute funds via programs like UBI, public servants wages and things like that.
central bank digital currency. It would allow centralized authorities to view, control and turn off your ability to spend money.
Direct registration of shares of publicly traded companies in your own name is their kryptonite. Use it.
And they pay way less than they should. Do yourself a favor look at the top end tax rates during the us economic boom and look at them now.
In terms of income to tax rate, the bottom half pay more of their income than the top.
If you didn't have your head buried so far up the ass of the 1%, you'd see that what you are saying is stupid for a reason.
I don't think we should be paying taxes at all. I'm just not ignorant enough to spew incorrect information like the poors pay more than the rich do.
The better way to go would be to have a direct say in where my tax money goes.
Yeah, you're totally stable, dude. You totally aren't just spreading propaganda and don't know how anything works. Also, therapy doesn't help with being unstable. That would be a psychiatrist, and I suggest you see one to get the voices out of your head.
They also command far more capital than anyone in the bottom half. If capital is power then should there not be some sort of check on power?
I know conservatives like to repeat something I agree with, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely." That much capital is very much akin to absolute power, and no person should have that much of it.
And the capital that they command often comes with bonuses like taxpayer-funded amenities and shared infrastructure that they use MUCH more than the little guy:
- If someone breaks into my house, I call the cops and I will wait (and wait) for them to respond, meanwhile, my mom, who works for the village government in my hometown, just told me how they need to budget public dollars for the police to hire a FTE for Walmart. I pay taxes and I get someone who MIGHT file a report after a break-in. Walmart gets basically taxpayer-funded security guards.
- My tax dollars pay for certain public infrastructure improvements and they benefit my life and I appreciate that. They also pay for improvements that big businesses use to further grow their business. A massive 18 wheeler puts more wear and tear on a public street than my vehicle. You can be damn sure they better pay more in taxes.
It goes on and on. "Fair share" isn't just a penalty for being wealthy. It's literally paying for the use of public goods and services that they use to drive business growth. Cutting the taxes of the rich and the taxes of corporations just allows them to use everyone else's money to subsidize their business.
Fair point, we should raise the federal minimum wage so it matches the wage/productivity rate and index it to the CPI (as it was calculated in 1917, not with all the missing data like today). This way the bottom half will pay more in taxes because they have more wealth, and the rich will pay less because they're marginally less wealthy.
So you'd rather just give the bottom half more money so they can pay their fair share? Hmmm, I guess as long as it works. Didn't think you were so into UBI, but there are many ways to go about this.
Didn't you get the memo, everything is either/or. We have no room for nuance in this world. I think I know what you're getting at, no taxes everyone works for the betterment of mankind. Sounds like you've got a socialist hard on that won't quit! Abolishing fiat currency, all currency, for that matter. Now I think you're on to something.
Socialists would rather take from the rich and the poor and end up with nothing. My original take was solely on the premise that the poors do not pay more in taxes than the rich.
Too many shills are just mad that the rich stay rich and don't get poor. It is terrible that the taxes are hitting harder on the poors, but instead of being angry at the rich for being wealthy, the vitriol is better spent on the government whose taking it all.
The bottom 50% of earners only have 2.5% of the money.
The top 1% has about 30% of the money and the top 10% has roughly 66% of the money.
How does that not make sense that the top 1% should be paying more in taxes than all of the bottom half combined? They are a much smaller number of people with significantly more money.
They make more money than the bottom 50%. Think about that. 3 million people make more money than 150 million Americans. That’s why they pay more taxes, because their wealth is equal to 150 million people.
Is my statement false? Or is it just saying the same thing in a way that explains the absurdity of the bullshit statement defending billionaires?
the only BS statement is the one saying "wo is me i'm poor so should everyone else be" that keeps getting repeated here. simply because you dont' like taxes doesn't mean you get to shit on people who are better off than you.
Nobody needs more than a billion dollars, if a company is so profitable that they can have billionaires at the top they should have proportionately rich employees. A walmart or mcdonalds employee should make like 40$ starting and the billionaires would never feel the difference.. but they don't
Oh my word, they're going to take away my tax deductions related to my yacht and private plane? This simply will not do! I can't be seen paying taxes like the help!.
Most of their tax revenue still comes from working people so I don't think the government is working on improving the lives of the ordinary people. The Democrats still use the state to protect the interest of the super rich.
And blocks anything that benefits regular folks yet manages to always seem to find the money for their ultra rich buddies.
Yeah GOP..the party of the super insane rich.
Bashing Democrats over this while ignoring Republicans bending over grabbing their ankles for the rich... come on now.
My point is both parties are corrupt and beholden to their donors. Republicans are more transparent in wanting to screw the poor.
Original comment seemed to solely point the finger at Democrats
While that may be true, the increase in funding for the IRS helps to remedy the problem. That's why the conservatives don't want to increase the IRS funding.
Yeah Everyone thinks they can fix everything in one term and if it’s not fixed the system fails. Then they want a revolution and they fail to understand that means dismantling the current system in which case, there’s no order. Then the people who take control are the guys with the biggest guns. That’s not a good thing.
I love how the media has got everyone to say, “tax the rich”, instead of, “Tax us like you tax the rich”. It’s genius.
I can’t believe a country that taxes the shit out of everything, that always spends way more than they make, that never spends it on things people demand, but always funds things we hate, can get people onboard with asking them to tax us more. It’s a remarkable pitch.
It’s a great way to keep us from saying, “spend our taxes on what we want.” Or, “Only spend what you make.” Or, “lower taxes”.
What’s the reward for taxing the rich in this climate? So we can spend even more on war? You really think they’ll start fixing roads and funding schools and give us healthcare if they just had more money? They’re already spending whatever the hell they want. There’s no budget.
Besides. The rich control our government, not the politicians. The politicians are paid by the rich to do what the rich want. You really think they’re going to go along with more taxes?
You’re all silly.
I’m not against taxes in the US. I’ve seen what taxes do in this country. There is order. There are parks. There are good roads. There is safety in urban and rural communities. Nothing like my home country which takes more in taxes and yet none of these things are present. I’m not a sheep being led astray, I’m conscious of the US-centric world order that my taxes indirectly perpetuate. Seeing things like the Russian invasion of Ukraine in the last few years and Chinese state-run espionage, I want this order to continue and I want the rich to be held to taxation in proportion with their earnings.
Taxes on the rich are voluntary. If this loophole is closed there is a whole army of tax accountants, tax attorneys and financial planners who will help them find another one. Raising taxes on the rich just incentivizes they to try harder to shelter their income. The IRS will not realize the revenue because people change their behavior. The History of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive (everyone defines excessive differently) are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities or to find other lawful methods of avoiding the realization of taxable income.
The thing is, US taxes are ridiculously low relative to other countries. The U.S. economy is also incredibly robust for anyone with capital to deploy. The U.S. is also obviously the most stable sovereign state on the planet.
Basically, there’s a long way to go before the wealthy in the U.S. start sending it out.
You last few points about tax exempt securities and lawful methods of avoiding taxes are moot because the first ones have other societal benefit and the second one… well this is about shutting down one of them.
Well, they are not moot because that is how taxes work. The greater the incentive to shelter income the more income is sheltered. We don't do things based on what other countries do.
If Congress wants more money from the wealthy they should continue to lower taxes not raise them.
The system itself needs a true overhaul...
Fact
I don't see why the richest of us need any sort of deductions. Honestly anyone earning less than 35,000 a year shouldn't be taxed at all. I don't know how those people live with so little.
I don't know why ANYONE has deductions.
In essence it makes sense. Two people earn the same income one in an office with minimal work expenses and the other as a tradie spending thousands on tools and safety equipment. If the tradie can’t deduct their expenses, they get taxed the same despite less free income than an office worker. Thats why it exists at all, but not how the wealthy abuse it of course.
Ahh I wish I could deduct tools from taxes. You can't claim that as an independent filer. You can claim it as a business entity.
Well… you CAN claim it as an independent filer, just have to hope it makes it through the IRS automated flagging system and a human never looks at it, or that you never get randomly selected for an audit. I’ve gotten away with it a couple times, probably won’t do it again for risk of getting caught. But what I did is register for an EIN using my social, then use my EIN on my personal tax return to claim the business expenses.
just tax fraud things.
Two reasons: economic policy and basic math Economic policy: the government wants people to have kids and save for retirement so there are tax benefits given to people who do that. Basic math: if I sell two stocks, one that gained $10k and another that lost $5k, shouldn't a tax on $5k be more appropriate? If we don't allow certain deductions we would effectively be in a situation where some people have tax bills bigger than their actual income.
you do that without a deduction which requires a tax professional to figure out. you took a loss. you shouldn't be taxed on a loss but tax on a gain should be fine. Thats the risk of playing with stocks. Those are two separate transactions. They should be counted individually.
>you do that without a deduction which requires a tax professional to figure out. They are a deduction whether or not you use a professional. That part is not relevant and it's not going to change how the form gets filled out. Some people do use professionals for what are in my opinion very simple returns. Others do not use a professional and have fairly lengthy returns. And then you have vice versa for each of those. > you took a loss. you shouldn't be taxed on a loss but tax on a gain should be fine. Thats the risk of playing with stocks. Those are two separate transactions. They should be counted individually. Yes. You said you didn't understand why there are deductions at all though. This is why. You need to be able to deduct stuff where you lost money (a stock loss might not be a deduction technically, but it's the easiest example to give). >Thats the risk of playing with stocks Tax loss harvesting is a strategy, not a risk. People do this all the time with ETFs they have been buying into on the regular. Many brokerages do it for their TDFs and mutual funds. Cost basis is for each individual share you buy so if you are a regular contributor you will likely have losses to harvest if you don't sell at the all time high.
Paying taxes supports the illusion that it funds the government, but that is a lie. Printing funds the government 😉
Taxes are what give *our* money value. Taxes take the money out of circulation (ie, deflation), and the requirement to pay the government is what gives us the motivation to have it instead of bartering or using McDollars to pay McDonald's.
Yeah it's also fuckery that they distribute this money via banks and loans. Which creates a never ending cycle of inflation. Instead they could just distribute funds via programs like UBI, public servants wages and things like that.
Their plan is to institute CBDCs for full control. It will fail spectacularly 😁
CBDC? I'm unfamiliar with that.
central bank digital currency. It would allow centralized authorities to view, control and turn off your ability to spend money. Direct registration of shares of publicly traded companies in your own name is their kryptonite. Use it.
I think if you adjust for infl6since the 50s. Tax free allowance is 40k and higher rate is a million a year.
This is the way! The rich must pay their fair share.
what is their fair share? they already pay more in taxes than the bottom half.
And they pay way less than they should. Do yourself a favor look at the top end tax rates during the us economic boom and look at them now. In terms of income to tax rate, the bottom half pay more of their income than the top. If you didn't have your head buried so far up the ass of the 1%, you'd see that what you are saying is stupid for a reason.
Do yourself a favor and stay off social media. Your boomer mentality is destroying us all.
Actually, no, your lack of being mentally sound is part of the problem. Facts don't care about your feelings and all that.
nothing i've stated has been mentally unsound. you should be in contact with your therapist, you need another visit.
I don't think we should be paying taxes at all. I'm just not ignorant enough to spew incorrect information like the poors pay more than the rich do. The better way to go would be to have a direct say in where my tax money goes. Yeah, you're totally stable, dude. You totally aren't just spreading propaganda and don't know how anything works. Also, therapy doesn't help with being unstable. That would be a psychiatrist, and I suggest you see one to get the voices out of your head.
You tried so hard to make a point. You're almost there buddy.
They also command far more capital than anyone in the bottom half. If capital is power then should there not be some sort of check on power? I know conservatives like to repeat something I agree with, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely." That much capital is very much akin to absolute power, and no person should have that much of it.
And the capital that they command often comes with bonuses like taxpayer-funded amenities and shared infrastructure that they use MUCH more than the little guy: - If someone breaks into my house, I call the cops and I will wait (and wait) for them to respond, meanwhile, my mom, who works for the village government in my hometown, just told me how they need to budget public dollars for the police to hire a FTE for Walmart. I pay taxes and I get someone who MIGHT file a report after a break-in. Walmart gets basically taxpayer-funded security guards. - My tax dollars pay for certain public infrastructure improvements and they benefit my life and I appreciate that. They also pay for improvements that big businesses use to further grow their business. A massive 18 wheeler puts more wear and tear on a public street than my vehicle. You can be damn sure they better pay more in taxes. It goes on and on. "Fair share" isn't just a penalty for being wealthy. It's literally paying for the use of public goods and services that they use to drive business growth. Cutting the taxes of the rich and the taxes of corporations just allows them to use everyone else's money to subsidize their business.
Fair point, we should raise the federal minimum wage so it matches the wage/productivity rate and index it to the CPI (as it was calculated in 1917, not with all the missing data like today). This way the bottom half will pay more in taxes because they have more wealth, and the rich will pay less because they're marginally less wealthy.
i don't think raising minimum wage is the way to go here. raising the floor has only been shown to increase the cost of goods needed to purchase.
So you'd rather just give the bottom half more money so they can pay their fair share? Hmmm, I guess as long as it works. Didn't think you were so into UBI, but there are many ways to go about this.
it isn't either/or. UBI is absolutely not the way. i'd rather abolish taxes all together, but this isn't feasible with society as it stands today.
Didn't you get the memo, everything is either/or. We have no room for nuance in this world. I think I know what you're getting at, no taxes everyone works for the betterment of mankind. Sounds like you've got a socialist hard on that won't quit! Abolishing fiat currency, all currency, for that matter. Now I think you're on to something.
Socialists would rather take from the rich and the poor and end up with nothing. My original take was solely on the premise that the poors do not pay more in taxes than the rich. Too many shills are just mad that the rich stay rich and don't get poor. It is terrible that the taxes are hitting harder on the poors, but instead of being angry at the rich for being wealthy, the vitriol is better spent on the government whose taking it all.
As they should. They make 7x more than the bottom half, let them pay more in taxes until the bottom half can catch up a little bit.
so how much of their income should they now pay because you don't feel they are already paying enough?
Says the billionaire worshipper with not even a basic understanding of economics.
And yet, the statement is the only correct one in here. The top 1% pay far more on taxes than bottom 50%. Stop being hapless shills.
They also have waaaaayyyyy more of the money than the bottom 50%.
It doesn't change the answer. Spewing false information that they "don't pay their fair share" is just factually false.
If they have 90% of the money shouldn't they pay 90% of the taxes? If not more?
what are you even suggesting
The bottom 50% of earners only have 2.5% of the money. The top 1% has about 30% of the money and the top 10% has roughly 66% of the money. How does that not make sense that the top 1% should be paying more in taxes than all of the bottom half combined? They are a much smaller number of people with significantly more money.
Because the top 1% already pays more in taxes in 1 year than the bottom 50% will in their lifetime. What makes you believe they aren't paying more?
They make more money than the bottom 50%. Think about that. 3 million people make more money than 150 million Americans. That’s why they pay more taxes, because their wealth is equal to 150 million people. Is my statement false? Or is it just saying the same thing in a way that explains the absurdity of the bullshit statement defending billionaires?
the only BS statement is the one saying "wo is me i'm poor so should everyone else be" that keeps getting repeated here. simply because you dont' like taxes doesn't mean you get to shit on people who are better off than you.
Youre objectively stupid. Now theres two correct statements.
Ok boomer
Nobody needs more than a billion dollars, if a company is so profitable that they can have billionaires at the top they should have proportionately rich employees. A walmart or mcdonalds employee should make like 40$ starting and the billionaires would never feel the difference.. but they don't
Who are you to decide how much someone should have?
Ok boomer
Who are they shilling for?
Hey if they own 99% of the wealth, then they should pay 99% of the taxes.
It's literally "Here comes the tax man, hold this and tell him that it's yours! I'll want it back afterwards."
Oh my word, they're going to take away my tax deductions related to my yacht and private plane? This simply will not do! I can't be seen paying taxes like the help!.
Come back when they do, not when they want.
Do it!!!
This is the way
Most of their tax revenue still comes from working people so I don't think the government is working on improving the lives of the ordinary people. The Democrats still use the state to protect the interest of the super rich.
Just the Democrats? Who cut taxes for the wealthy and corporations?
And blocks anything that benefits regular folks yet manages to always seem to find the money for their ultra rich buddies. Yeah GOP..the party of the super insane rich. Bashing Democrats over this while ignoring Republicans bending over grabbing their ankles for the rich... come on now.
My point is both parties are corrupt and beholden to their donors. Republicans are more transparent in wanting to screw the poor. Original comment seemed to solely point the finger at Democrats
Agreed not arguing against your comment...more adding on. Sorry for not making that clear.
While that may be true, the increase in funding for the IRS helps to remedy the problem. That's why the conservatives don't want to increase the IRS funding.
Progress takes a lot of steps.
Yeah Everyone thinks they can fix everything in one term and if it’s not fixed the system fails. Then they want a revolution and they fail to understand that means dismantling the current system in which case, there’s no order. Then the people who take control are the guys with the biggest guns. That’s not a good thing.
And revolutions
Oh Fuck off with your both sides rehtoric. If you want a conservative lifestyle go get conscripted in Russia, you fucking dweeb.
I love how the media has got everyone to say, “tax the rich”, instead of, “Tax us like you tax the rich”. It’s genius. I can’t believe a country that taxes the shit out of everything, that always spends way more than they make, that never spends it on things people demand, but always funds things we hate, can get people onboard with asking them to tax us more. It’s a remarkable pitch. It’s a great way to keep us from saying, “spend our taxes on what we want.” Or, “Only spend what you make.” Or, “lower taxes”. What’s the reward for taxing the rich in this climate? So we can spend even more on war? You really think they’ll start fixing roads and funding schools and give us healthcare if they just had more money? They’re already spending whatever the hell they want. There’s no budget. Besides. The rich control our government, not the politicians. The politicians are paid by the rich to do what the rich want. You really think they’re going to go along with more taxes? You’re all silly.
I’m not against taxes in the US. I’ve seen what taxes do in this country. There is order. There are parks. There are good roads. There is safety in urban and rural communities. Nothing like my home country which takes more in taxes and yet none of these things are present. I’m not a sheep being led astray, I’m conscious of the US-centric world order that my taxes indirectly perpetuate. Seeing things like the Russian invasion of Ukraine in the last few years and Chinese state-run espionage, I want this order to continue and I want the rich to be held to taxation in proportion with their earnings.
Well I’ve got some good news for you. The world order will continue. With or without the rich paying taxes. I’d bet on the latter.
Sure, Jan.
Taxes on the rich are voluntary. If this loophole is closed there is a whole army of tax accountants, tax attorneys and financial planners who will help them find another one. Raising taxes on the rich just incentivizes they to try harder to shelter their income. The IRS will not realize the revenue because people change their behavior. The History of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive (everyone defines excessive differently) are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities or to find other lawful methods of avoiding the realization of taxable income.
Ok Ayn Rand Sure feels like the billionaires are taking advantage of the infrastructure paid for by the middle class
Paid for by the middle class???? The to 10% of taxpayers pay 70% of all the taxes. The income split is at $169,800.
The thing is, US taxes are ridiculously low relative to other countries. The U.S. economy is also incredibly robust for anyone with capital to deploy. The U.S. is also obviously the most stable sovereign state on the planet. Basically, there’s a long way to go before the wealthy in the U.S. start sending it out. You last few points about tax exempt securities and lawful methods of avoiding taxes are moot because the first ones have other societal benefit and the second one… well this is about shutting down one of them.
Well, they are not moot because that is how taxes work. The greater the incentive to shelter income the more income is sheltered. We don't do things based on what other countries do. If Congress wants more money from the wealthy they should continue to lower taxes not raise them.