Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Name ONE Federal Income Tax Deduction....

Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 3:52:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
....or credit that a rich man can claim, but a poor man cannot.

I could probably name a dozen that a poor man can claim that a rich man cannot, including a personal exception that is worth less.
So, when it comes to the tax code, who has special treatment?
My work here is, finally, done.
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 4:05:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 3:52:08 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
....or credit that a rich man can claim, but a poor man cannot.

I could probably name a dozen that a poor man can claim that a rich man cannot, including a personal exception that is worth less.
So, when it comes to the tax code, who has special treatment?

Deductions: Home mortgage interest, Business entertainment expenses, Business travel expenses, Charitable contributions

Credits: Electric drive motor vehicle, Undistributed capital gains, Residential energy efficient property

While a poor man technically may be "allowed" to claim some of these, you must admit in practice they are overwhelmingly claimed by rich or middle class filers. After all, who buys electric cars and solar panels for their house, and has business entertainment expenses? Not poor people
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 4:08:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 4:05:11 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 2/18/2015 3:52:08 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
....or credit that a rich man can claim, but a poor man cannot.

I could probably name a dozen that a poor man can claim that a rich man cannot, including a personal exception that is worth less.
So, when it comes to the tax code, who has special treatment?

Deductions: Home mortgage interest, Business entertainment expenses, Business travel expenses, Charitable contributions

Credits: Electric drive motor vehicle, Undistributed capital gains, Residential energy efficient property

While a poor man technically may be "allowed" to claim some of these, you must admit in practice they are overwhelmingly claimed by rich or middle class filers. After all, who buys electric cars and solar panels for their house, and has business entertainment expenses? Not poor people

Exactly. These are not loopholes designed for the rich, they are available to everyone.
Yes, the poorer you are, the less likely you will have them, but that is irrelevant to the issue.

Now, a rich man cannot claim the child tax credit, part of his social security income is taxable, college credits and earned income credits are disallowed.

To your point, you have to admit that a tax decrease to the poor (like the Bush tax cuts that created the 10% bracket) also helps the rich as well. Basically, anything you do will tax code wise is likely to affect the rich.
My work here is, finally, done.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 4:09:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 3:52:08 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
....or credit that a rich man can claim, but a poor man cannot.

I could probably name a dozen that a poor man can claim that a rich man cannot, including a personal exception that is worth less.
So, when it comes to the tax code, who has special treatment?

The tiered structure of our tax system sort of answers that for you. A dude making 30K who gets a promotion to 50K gets a different tax bracket.

A dude making 16 mill who gets a bonus to 20 mill pays the same as though he was making 2 mill.

Secondly, a poor man more than likely won't be using pretax dollars for later capital gains.

Lastly, having to say "Federal' shoots the argument in the foot. In my fine state, there are exemptions on sales taxes for buying a yacht for cripes sakes. I forget the exact verbiage, but industrial farm fleet equipment can be written off for depreciation.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 4:13:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 4:09:28 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/18/2015 3:52:08 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
....or credit that a rich man can claim, but a poor man cannot.

I could probably name a dozen that a poor man can claim that a rich man cannot, including a personal exception that is worth less.
So, when it comes to the tax code, who has special treatment?

The tiered structure of our tax system sort of answers that for you. A dude making 30K who gets a promotion to 50K gets a different tax bracket.
Not necessarily.

A dude making 16 mill who gets a bonus to 20 mill pays the same as though he was making 2 mill.
Not necessarily, but sure.
Of course, this is tax rate, not deductions or credits (i.e. the loopholes people complain about)

Secondly, a poor man more than likely won't be using pretax dollars for later capital gains.
You mean like 401k, owning a home, or social security?
I may actually not understand this comment.

Lastly, having to say "Federal' shoots the argument in the foot. In my fine state, there are exemptions on sales taxes for buying a yacht for cripes sakes. I forget the exact verbiage, but industrial farm fleet equipment can be written off for depreciation.

I'm talking about federal because states have their own systems, and I don't want to delve into the different state's laws to assess the validity of your claim.
Some states don't even have an income tax.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 4:16:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 4:09:28 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/18/2015 3:52:08 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
....or credit that a rich man can claim, but a poor man cannot.

I could probably name a dozen that a poor man can claim that a rich man cannot, including a personal exception that is worth less.
So, when it comes to the tax code, who has special treatment?

The tiered structure of our tax system sort of answers that for you. A dude making 30K who gets a promotion to 50K gets a different tax bracket.

A dude making 16 mill who gets a bonus to 20 mill pays the same as though he was making 2 mill.


Actually, these are both rates, and not dollars, so I fail to see the issue.
My work here is, finally, done.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 4:17:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 4:13:02 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 4:09:28 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/18/2015 3:52:08 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
....or credit that a rich man can claim, but a poor man cannot.

I could probably name a dozen that a poor man can claim that a rich man cannot, including a personal exception that is worth less.
So, when it comes to the tax code, who has special treatment?

The tiered structure of our tax system sort of answers that for you. A dude making 30K who gets a promotion to 50K gets a different tax bracket.
Not necessarily.

A dude making 16 mill who gets a bonus to 20 mill pays the same as though he was making 2 mill.
Not necessarily, but sure.
Of course, this is tax rate, not deductions or credits (i.e. the loopholes people complain about)


Secondly, a poor man more than likely won't be using pretax dollars for later capital gains.

401 and retirement. Its possible to establish pretax retirement accounts. This sort of means your immediate disposable income takes a bite. The less you make, the bigger the bite.

You mean like 401k, owning a home, or social security?
I may actually not understand this comment.

Lastly, having to say "Federal' shoots the argument in the foot. In my fine state, there are exemptions on sales taxes for buying a yacht for cripes sakes. I forget the exact verbiage, but industrial farm fleet equipment can be written off for depreciation.

I'm talking about federal because states have their own systems, and I don't want to delve into the different state's laws to assess the validity of your claim.
Some states don't even have an income tax.

So loopholes can only be federal to be complained about? ;)
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 4:19:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 4:08:52 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 4:05:11 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 2/18/2015 3:52:08 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
....or credit that a rich man can claim, but a poor man cannot.

I could probably name a dozen that a poor man can claim that a rich man cannot, including a personal exception that is worth less.
So, when it comes to the tax code, who has special treatment?

Deductions: Home mortgage interest, Business entertainment expenses, Business travel expenses, Charitable contributions

Credits: Electric drive motor vehicle, Undistributed capital gains, Residential energy efficient property

While a poor man technically may be "allowed" to claim some of these, you must admit in practice they are overwhelmingly claimed by rich or middle class filers. After all, who buys electric cars and solar panels for their house, and has business entertainment expenses? Not poor people

Exactly. These are not loopholes designed for the rich, they are available to everyone.
Yes, the poorer you are, the less likely you will have them, but that is irrelevant to the issue.

How is that irrelevant? De facto and de jure discrimination are both discrimination. If you want to talk about whether the tax code shows special treatment, you have to look at the big picture.

Now, a rich man cannot claim the child tax credit, part of his social security income is taxable, college credits and earned income credits are disallowed.

To your point, you have to admit that a tax decrease to the poor (like the Bush tax cuts that created the 10% bracket) also helps the rich as well. Basically, anything you do will tax code wise is likely to affect the rich.

Sure, since we have a progressive income tax system, changing the lower brackets affects everyone. I don't think anyone would deny that. That's not the only way to change the tax code of course. In any case, what is your point? That rich people pay a higher share of their income than poor people in taxes? Yes, and rightfully so. Of course, there are still certain things in the tax code that favor them, and one can be in favor or opposed to that. I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at with this.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 4:22:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 4:17:11 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/18/2015 4:13:02 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 4:09:28 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/18/2015 3:52:08 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
....or credit that a rich man can claim, but a poor man cannot.

I could probably name a dozen that a poor man can claim that a rich man cannot, including a personal exception that is worth less.
So, when it comes to the tax code, who has special treatment?

The tiered structure of our tax system sort of answers that for you. A dude making 30K who gets a promotion to 50K gets a different tax bracket.
Not necessarily.

A dude making 16 mill who gets a bonus to 20 mill pays the same as though he was making 2 mill.
Not necessarily, but sure.
Of course, this is tax rate, not deductions or credits (i.e. the loopholes people complain about)


Secondly, a poor man more than likely won't be using pretax dollars for later capital gains.

401 and retirement. Its possible to establish pretax retirement accounts. This sort of means your immediate disposable income takes a bite. The less you make, the bigger the bite.

Okay, but this still applies to both equally.
The IRS is not saying the poor man cannot do this. It is available to him, all of your examples are, they are just unlikely to apply.
Conversely, the rich man is disallowed to take the child tax credit, or college credits, or other deductions/credits.
See the difference?

You mean like 401k, owning a home, or social security?
I may actually not understand this comment.

Lastly, having to say "Federal' shoots the argument in the foot. In my fine state, there are exemptions on sales taxes for buying a yacht for cripes sakes. I forget the exact verbiage, but industrial farm fleet equipment can be written off for depreciation.

I'm talking about federal because states have their own systems, and I don't want to delve into the different state's laws to assess the validity of your claim.
Some states don't even have an income tax.

So loopholes can only be federal to be complained about? ;)
This isn't about complaining about loopholes per se.
It is about showing that the tax code actually gives special treatment to the poor by making certain tax items available only to them, while nothing the rich can claim has such a restriction.

Also, those state specific ones you stated are still available to the poor, if they were to purchase them. (somehow get financing to purchase)
My work here is, finally, done.
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 4:27:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
So khaos, if there was a tax credit for being able to dunk a basketball on a regulation hoop, you wouldn't think that was discriminatory to short people? After all, it's possible for a short man to do it, it's just very unlikely.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 4:28:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 4:19:55 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 2/18/2015 4:08:52 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 4:05:11 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 2/18/2015 3:52:08 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
....or credit that a rich man can claim, but a poor man cannot.

I could probably name a dozen that a poor man can claim that a rich man cannot, including a personal exception that is worth less.
So, when it comes to the tax code, who has special treatment?

Deductions: Home mortgage interest, Business entertainment expenses, Business travel expenses, Charitable contributions

Credits: Electric drive motor vehicle, Undistributed capital gains, Residential energy efficient property

While a poor man technically may be "allowed" to claim some of these, you must admit in practice they are overwhelmingly claimed by rich or middle class filers. After all, who buys electric cars and solar panels for their house, and has business entertainment expenses? Not poor people

Exactly. These are not loopholes designed for the rich, they are available to everyone.
Yes, the poorer you are, the less likely you will have them, but that is irrelevant to the issue.

How is that irrelevant? De facto and de jure discrimination are both discrimination. If you want to talk about whether the tax code shows special treatment, you have to look at the big picture.

Cancellation of debt exemption, "saver's credit", reduced personal exemption amounts....

Then tell me how the rich are getting special treatment, then, in the tax code.
Why is deducting real estate taxes special treatment, when thousands of middle class (or even "poor") people deduct them?

Now, a rich man cannot claim the child tax credit, part of his social security income is taxable, college credits and earned income credits are disallowed.

To your point, you have to admit that a tax decrease to the poor (like the Bush tax cuts that created the 10% bracket) also helps the rich as well. Basically, anything you do will tax code wise is likely to affect the rich.

Sure, since we have a progressive income tax system, changing the lower brackets affects everyone. I don't think anyone would deny that. That's not the only way to change the tax code of course. In any case, what is your point? That rich people pay a higher share of their income than poor people in taxes? Yes, and rightfully so. Of course, there are still certain things in the tax code that favor them, and one can be in favor or opposed to that. I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at with this.

To understand how people can say the rich get special treatment, when there is codified discrepancies (equality). To see what loopholes people talk about when they say the rich exploit them.
Things like that.
My work here is, finally, done.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 4:33:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 4:22:18 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 4:17:11 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/18/2015 4:13:02 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 4:09:28 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/18/2015 3:52:08 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
....or credit that a rich man can claim, but a poor man cannot.

I could probably name a dozen that a poor man can claim that a rich man cannot, including a personal exception that is worth less.
So, when it comes to the tax code, who has special treatment?

The tiered structure of our tax system sort of answers that for you. A dude making 30K who gets a promotion to 50K gets a different tax bracket.
Not necessarily.

A dude making 16 mill who gets a bonus to 20 mill pays the same as though he was making 2 mill.
Not necessarily, but sure.
Of course, this is tax rate, not deductions or credits (i.e. the loopholes people complain about)


Secondly, a poor man more than likely won't be using pretax dollars for later capital gains.

401 and retirement. Its possible to establish pretax retirement accounts. This sort of means your immediate disposable income takes a bite. The less you make, the bigger the bite.

Okay, but this still applies to both equally.
The IRS is not saying the poor man cannot do this. It is available to him, all of your examples are, they are just unlikely to apply.

And they are 'unlikely to apply' due to the qualifier of your question of wealthier vs not. Thats the trick that is being played. 'they could do that too, if they had money...' isn't a refute, its identifying the problem. That is the nature of something being discriminating as opposed to exclusive.

Conversely, the rich man is disallowed to take the child tax credit, or college credits, or other deductions/credits.
See the difference?

And if the poor guy had money, he wouldn't be able to do that either. See, it applies equally!

You mean like 401k, owning a home, or social security?
I may actually not understand this comment.

Lastly, having to say "Federal' shoots the argument in the foot. In my fine state, there are exemptions on sales taxes for buying a yacht for cripes sakes. I forget the exact verbiage, but industrial farm fleet equipment can be written off for depreciation.

I'm talking about federal because states have their own systems, and I don't want to delve into the different state's laws to assess the validity of your claim.
Some states don't even have an income tax.

So loopholes can only be federal to be complained about? ;)
This isn't about complaining about loopholes per se.
It is about showing that the tax code actually gives special treatment to the poor by making certain tax items available only to them, while nothing the rich can claim has such a restriction.

Because if you didn't, they wouldn't have any money. No disposable income, society stagnates.

Me being a wealthy individual can just tie my benefits and compensation to a business I own, pay myself in stock, and sell the stock, and pay taxes as capital gains, rather than income. The rate on that is incredibly low by comparison to income. Or, as a corporation, the business as a whole is a person of which I own and am not paid by, though partake of its profits, the company pays taxes on its profits... not me.

These are all options that the wealthier have access too, and can exploit. In general, average 9-5 dude can't pay himself in stock, then sell said stock to duck taxes, nor can he lump all his incomes and expenditures into an entity for tax purposes.

Also, those state specific ones you stated are still available to the poor, if they were to purchase them. (somehow get financing to purchase)

And if the wealthier folk were to just GIVE their money away, and not have any, then they could qualify for school tax credits, earned income credit, and child credits. See? Still available.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 4:34:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 4:27:58 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
So khaos, if there was a tax credit for being able to dunk a basketball on a regulation hoop, you wouldn't think that was discriminatory to short people? After all, it's possible for a short man to do it, it's just very unlikely.

As silly of an example as that is....
No.

Let's take it down a notch and tell me if you think this is equally discriminatory:
home mortgage interest deduction, state income tax deduction, charitable contributions, writing off union dues.
These are things that the middle class are likely to do, but highly unlikely for a poor person to do.
My work here is, finally, done.
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 4:35:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 4:28:04 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 4:19:55 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 2/18/2015 4:08:52 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 4:05:11 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 2/18/2015 3:52:08 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
....or credit that a rich man can claim, but a poor man cannot.

I could probably name a dozen that a poor man can claim that a rich man cannot, including a personal exception that is worth less.
So, when it comes to the tax code, who has special treatment?

Deductions: Home mortgage interest, Business entertainment expenses, Business travel expenses, Charitable contributions

Credits: Electric drive motor vehicle, Undistributed capital gains, Residential energy efficient property

While a poor man technically may be "allowed" to claim some of these, you must admit in practice they are overwhelmingly claimed by rich or middle class filers. After all, who buys electric cars and solar panels for their house, and has business entertainment expenses? Not poor people

Exactly. These are not loopholes designed for the rich, they are available to everyone.
Yes, the poorer you are, the less likely you will have them, but that is irrelevant to the issue.

How is that irrelevant? De facto and de jure discrimination are both discrimination. If you want to talk about whether the tax code shows special treatment, you have to look at the big picture.

Cancellation of debt exemption, "saver's credit", reduced personal exemption amounts....

Then tell me how the rich are getting special treatment, then, in the tax code.
Why is deducting real estate taxes special treatment, when thousands of middle class (or even "poor") people deduct them?

Because everyone knows that the value of these deductions is much greater for the wealthy than it is for the poor. I'm not arguing that rich people are completely advantaged by the tax code. But it's also wrong to say they don't have any advantages in it.

Now, a rich man cannot claim the child tax credit, part of his social security income is taxable, college credits and earned income credits are disallowed.

To your point, you have to admit that a tax decrease to the poor (like the Bush tax cuts that created the 10% bracket) also helps the rich as well. Basically, anything you do will tax code wise is likely to affect the rich.

Sure, since we have a progressive income tax system, changing the lower brackets affects everyone. I don't think anyone would deny that. That's not the only way to change the tax code of course. In any case, what is your point? That rich people pay a higher share of their income than poor people in taxes? Yes, and rightfully so. Of course, there are still certain things in the tax code that favor them, and one can be in favor or opposed to that. I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at with this.

To understand how people can say the rich get special treatment, when there is codified discrepancies (equality). To see what loopholes people talk about when they say the rich exploit them.
Things like that.

So things like why the capital gains tax rate is capped lower than some middle class peoples income tax rate, when that is primarily a source of income for the rich? Or how deductions for charitable giving are overwhelmingly claimed by the rich?
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 4:40:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 4:34:49 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 4:27:58 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
So khaos, if there was a tax credit for being able to dunk a basketball on a regulation hoop, you wouldn't think that was discriminatory to short people? After all, it's possible for a short man to do it, it's just very unlikely.

As silly of an example as that is....
No.

Let's take it down a notch and tell me if you think this is equally discriminatory:
home mortgage interest deduction, state income tax deduction, charitable contributions, writing off union dues.
These are things that the middle class are likely to do, but highly unlikely for a poor person to do.

Discriminatory in the sense that these deductions are advantageous to the middle class and rich, but not the poor, yes. Here's what I'm saying: it's ok for our tax code to be discriminatory. That's the whole idea behind a progressive tax code, otherwise we'd all be paying the same flat tax. Some credits and deductions favor the poor, others the middle class, and others the rich. That's just the way it's set up. You can like or dislike that, but you can't deny that every group has "loopholes" working in their favor
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 8:58:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 4:33:35 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/18/2015 4:22:18 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 4:17:11 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/18/2015 4:13:02 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 4:09:28 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/18/2015 3:52:08 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
....or credit that a rich man can claim, but a poor man cannot.

I could probably name a dozen that a poor man can claim that a rich man cannot, including a personal exception that is worth less.
So, when it comes to the tax code, who has special treatment?

The tiered structure of our tax system sort of answers that for you. A dude making 30K who gets a promotion to 50K gets a different tax bracket.
Not necessarily.

A dude making 16 mill who gets a bonus to 20 mill pays the same as though he was making 2 mill.
Not necessarily, but sure.
Of course, this is tax rate, not deductions or credits (i.e. the loopholes people complain about)


Secondly, a poor man more than likely won't be using pretax dollars for later capital gains.

401 and retirement. Its possible to establish pretax retirement accounts. This sort of means your immediate disposable income takes a bite. The less you make, the bigger the bite.

Okay, but this still applies to both equally.
The IRS is not saying the poor man cannot do this. It is available to him, all of your examples are, they are just unlikely to apply.

And they are 'unlikely to apply' due to the qualifier of your question of wealthier vs not. Thats the trick that is being played. 'they could do that too, if they had money...' isn't a refute, its identifying the problem. That is the nature of something being discriminating as opposed to exclusive.

So, you believe the act that is "rewarded" via the tax code, e.g. having a child, is not relevant, just the income?

Conversely, the rich man is disallowed to take the child tax credit, or college credits, or other deductions/credits.
See the difference?

And if the poor guy had money, he wouldn't be able to do that either. See, it applies equally!
The issues is the different treatment of acts under the tax code.

You mean like 401k, owning a home, or social security?
I may actually not understand this comment.

Lastly, having to say "Federal' shoots the argument in the foot. In my fine state, there are exemptions on sales taxes for buying a yacht for cripes sakes. I forget the exact verbiage, but industrial farm fleet equipment can be written off for depreciation.

I'm talking about federal because states have their own systems, and I don't want to delve into the different state's laws to assess the validity of your claim.
Some states don't even have an income tax.

So loopholes can only be federal to be complained about? ;)
This isn't about complaining about loopholes per se.
It is about showing that the tax code actually gives special treatment to the poor by making certain tax items available only to them, while nothing the rich can claim has such a restriction.

Because if you didn't, they wouldn't have any money. No disposable income, society stagnates.
So, when you claim your taxes, you can deduct $3950 for yourself, this is called the personal exemption. The IRS is saying that $3950/person is the amount that should not be taxed for whatever reason. However, this amount can be a straight up $0 for the rich.
Why can the rich not deduct $3950 for themselves, their spouse, or their dependents?

Me being a wealthy individual can just tie my benefits and compensation to a business I own, pay myself in stock, and sell the stock, and pay taxes as capital gains, rather than income. The rate on that is incredibly low by comparison to income. Or, as a corporation, the business as a whole is a person of which I own and am not paid by, though partake of its profits, the company pays taxes on its profits... not me.
If you sell the stock after one year, yes, you can, and that will likely piss off shareholders.
The second example, I am not sure you understand how that works.
Yes, the corporation pays corporate taxes, but your disbursement is taxed as income - either dividends or wages, in either case, income.

These are all options that the wealthier have access too, and can exploit. In general, average 9-5 dude can't pay himself in stock, then sell said stock to duck taxes, nor can he lump all his incomes and expenditures into an entity for tax purposes.
And, average 9-5 dude still pays less in income taxes than these guys do, so what is your point?

Also, those state specific ones you stated are still available to the poor, if they were to purchase them. (somehow get financing to purchase)

And if the wealthier folk were to just GIVE their money away, and not have any, then they could qualify for school tax credits, earned income credit, and child credits. See? Still available.
Actually, this is not accurate.
Aside the fact that itemized deductions are limited for the rich, even if they donated 100% of their income to charity in a given year, they would still not qualify for those credits. It is based on AGI, not taxable income.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 9:03:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
However, good news, I have found ONE example:
Excess Social Security Withheld (and teir 1 RRTA) deduction.

However, this is really just a correction to the SSA, for taking out too much, and really only applies to situations where a rich man works two jobs, and total payroll is in excess of $117K, to which SS taxes are no longer due. So, it is a refund for overpayment from the SSA, and not really an income tax.
But, it's something that only applies to the rich.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 9:13:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 4:40:40 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 2/18/2015 4:34:49 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 4:27:58 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
So khaos, if there was a tax credit for being able to dunk a basketball on a regulation hoop, you wouldn't think that was discriminatory to short people? After all, it's possible for a short man to do it, it's just very unlikely.

As silly of an example as that is....
No.

Let's take it down a notch and tell me if you think this is equally discriminatory:
home mortgage interest deduction, state income tax deduction, charitable contributions, writing off union dues.
These are things that the middle class are likely to do, but highly unlikely for a poor person to do.

Discriminatory in the sense that these deductions are advantageous to the middle class and rich, but not the poor, yes. Here's what I'm saying: it's ok for our tax code to be discriminatory. That's the whole idea behind a progressive tax code, otherwise we'd all be paying the same flat tax. Some credits and deductions favor the poor, others the middle class, and others the rich.
Actually, you can have a progressive tax code without these deductions and credits.
The progressive tax code just means that the more you make, the higher the rate is. It has nothing to do with saying that you are disallowed deductions that others are allowed to calculate the amount of tax you owe.

That's just the way it's set up. You can like or dislike that, but you can't deny that every group has "loopholes" working in their favor
I don't count things as "loopholes" like you do.
But, credits are exceptions to the rules, while the rich's "loopholes" are based on principles.
For example, the federal government does not tax on certain already taxed income, like property taxes and state income taxes (or even sales taxes).
The fact that a rich man deducts MORE than the poor man, who may not even own property is irrelevant to the principle. The same policy applies to the federal government not applying income tax to municipal bonds, or capital gains.

I do not take issue that capital gains have two seperate rates, nor do I take issue that the gain on the sale of a home has a specific exemption amount, but I do take issue if you say, due to your income, you can no longer apply capital losses to offset gains (this does not occur, but I'm trying to draw an analogy).
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 9:27:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 4:35:42 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 2/18/2015 4:28:04 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 4:19:55 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 2/18/2015 4:08:52 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 2/18/2015 4:05:11 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 2/18/2015 3:52:08 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
....or credit that a rich man can claim, but a poor man cannot.

I could probably name a dozen that a poor man can claim that a rich man cannot, including a personal exception that is worth less.
So, when it comes to the tax code, who has special treatment?

Deductions: Home mortgage interest, Business entertainment expenses, Business travel expenses, Charitable contributions

Credits: Electric drive motor vehicle, Undistributed capital gains, Residential energy efficient property

While a poor man technically may be "allowed" to claim some of these, you must admit in practice they are overwhelmingly claimed by rich or middle class filers. After all, who buys electric cars and solar panels for their house, and has business entertainment expenses? Not poor people

Exactly. These are not loopholes designed for the rich, they are available to everyone.
Yes, the poorer you are, the less likely you will have them, but that is irrelevant to the issue.

How is that irrelevant? De facto and de jure discrimination are both discrimination. If you want to talk about whether the tax code shows special treatment, you have to look at the big picture.

Cancellation of debt exemption, "saver's credit", reduced personal exemption amounts....

Then tell me how the rich are getting special treatment, then, in the tax code.
Why is deducting real estate taxes special treatment, when thousands of middle class (or even "poor") people deduct them?

Because everyone knows that the value of these deductions is much greater for the wealthy than it is for the poor. I'm not arguing that rich people are completely advantaged by the tax code. But it's also wrong to say they don't have any advantages in it.
I wouldn't call them advantages.
Reaping a bigger benefit =/= advantage
For example, a man who makes $8K and a man who makes $10K, neither will pay federal income taxes due to the personal exemption and standard deduction.
I would not say that the man who makes $10K has an advantage over the other man; he just reaps a bigger reward ($2K not being taxed).

Now, a rich man cannot claim the child tax credit, part of his social security income is taxable, college credits and earned income credits are disallowed.

To your point, you have to admit that a tax decrease to the poor (like the Bush tax cuts that created the 10% bracket) also helps the rich as well. Basically, anything you do will tax code wise is likely to affect the rich.

Sure, since we have a progressive income tax system, changing the lower brackets affects everyone. I don't think anyone would deny that. That's not the only way to change the tax code of course. In any case, what is your point? That rich people pay a higher share of their income than poor people in taxes? Yes, and rightfully so. Of course, there are still certain things in the tax code that favor them, and one can be in favor or opposed to that. I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at with this.

To understand how people can say the rich get special treatment, when there is codified discrepancies (equality). To see what loopholes people talk about when they say the rich exploit them.
Things like that.

So things like why the capital gains tax rate is capped lower than some middle class peoples income tax rate, when that is primarily a source of income for the rich?
I don't care about the tax rates. That is not this discussion.

Or how deductions for charitable giving are overwhelmingly claimed by the rich?
Are you aware of how taxes are computed?
The standard deduction is $6200.
So, if I want to claim any of my charitable donations, I must itemize my deductions.
That means, my charitiable donates are added to other deductions (state income taxes paid, real estate taxes paid, health insurance deduction (which is regressively claimed), casualty losses, mortgage interest deductions, and others) MUST be more than $6200. Otherwise, I am leaving money on the table.
Yes, the standard deduction is actually a credit in itself, as many people who claim it (I want to say 45%, but I can't open these docs at work [1], but in 2005, it was 65% [2]). So, what is your point?
That the rich claim the deduction? Of course they do, they are most likely to itemize.

[1]http://www.irs.gov...
[2]http://taxfoundation.org...
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 12:21:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
ford, to me, this issue is best described in this analogy:

I eat at a restaurant everyday in my Aramani business suit.
I see someone who has never been there before, but looks down on their luck (tattered clothes).
The manager gives him a discounted meal while charging me full price (i.e. using my payment to help the man)

Now, while I can think of many reasons why this is not a "big deal", as I don't need the money. It is a bit odd that I will never get a discounted meal, and, in fact, so many people are upset with me, because I use a credit card and get "bonus points" to redeem.

It is not the issue that the rich pay more, it is that the credits allow others pay less and are exclusive to them.
Another analogy to highlight the difference:
At a gas station, the sign price is $3/gallon. I pull up in a BMW and I am charged the sign price, but the guy who drives a 98 ford Taurus only pay $2.75/gallon, because they get a discount on the gas tax.
This is different then me being charged more because I drive a BMW, like I pay $3.25/gallon (more than the sign says).
My work here is, finally, done.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,153
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 2:16:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Gaming the systems has many opportunities, and the more income you have the more opportunities you have to be successful at it.

So that's 491,000 Americans who made more than $100,000 a year who paid no income tax.
7000 of them had income of $1 million.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com...
gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 2:19:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 12:21:04 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
ford, to me, this issue is best described in this analogy:

I eat at a restaurant everyday in my Aramani business suit.
I see someone who has never been there before, but looks down on their luck (tattered clothes).
The manager gives him a discounted meal while charging me full price (i.e. using my payment to help the man)


Now, while I can think of many reasons why this is not a "big deal", as I don't need the money. It is a bit odd that I will never get a discounted meal, and, in fact, so many people are upset with me, because I use a credit card and get "bonus points" to redeem.

It is not the issue that the rich pay more, it is that the credits allow others pay less and are exclusive to them.
Another analogy to highlight the difference:
At a gas station, the sign price is $3/gallon. I pull up in a BMW and I am charged the sign price, but the guy who drives a 98 ford Taurus only pay $2.75/gallon, because they get a discount on the gas tax.
This is different then me being charged more because I drive a BMW, like I pay $3.25/gallon (more than the sign says).

From all these posts, it looks as though the US needs some serious tax reform - what an absolute mess between state and federal governments.

The rich are certainly able to make more benefit of what is on offer, but phase out rules seem to always kick in as incomes increase.......they don't kick in if you pass a threshold on the way down. At the end of the day, its hard to get a tax refund if you don't pay tax in the first place. The rich get more available tax benefits due to the fact they pay more tax rather than any special treatment on behalf of them being rich.
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,153
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 2:20:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 2:16:31 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
Gaming the systems has many opportunities, and the more income you have the more opportunities you have to be successful at it.

So that's 491,000 Americans who made more than $100,000 a year who paid no income tax.
7000 of them had income of $1 million.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com...

I realize half a million filers may not see like many, but that is just the one who paid zero IRS tax.

Imagine how many paid less than 10%.

~ ~ ~
Now the really poor, like the ones who can get EITC - I have seen filers who get more back from the IRS, than their Gross earnings.
This is no accident, they are good gamers too.
The saps in the middle, we carry the load.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 2:24:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 2:20:55 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/19/2015 2:16:31 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
Gaming the systems has many opportunities, and the more income you have the more opportunities you have to be successful at it.

So that's 491,000 Americans who made more than $100,000 a year who paid no income tax.
7000 of them had income of $1 million.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com...

I realize half a million filers may not see like many, but that is just the one who paid zero IRS tax.

Imagine how many paid less than 10%.

~ ~ ~
Now the really poor, like the ones who can get EITC - I have seen filers who get more back from the IRS, than their Gross earnings.
This is no accident, they are good gamers too.
The saps in the middle, we carry the load.

Why is any of this considered "gaming the system"?
And, I do not believe those filers got more back than their gross income, but there are about 15% of filers how have a negative tax liability. (the IRS pays them more then they paid in).

And, you are aware that about 40% of Americans pay no income tax, right?
Hell, I had a year where I paid zero. (and I earned $40K from one job).
My work here is, finally, done.
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 2:25:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 9:27:00 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Are you aware of how taxes are computed?
Yes.
The standard deduction is $6200.
So, if I want to claim any of my charitable donations, I must itemize my deductions.
That means, my charitiable donates are added to other deductions (state income taxes paid, real estate taxes paid, health insurance deduction (which is regressively claimed), casualty losses, mortgage interest deductions, and others) MUST be more than $6200. Otherwise, I am leaving money on the table.
Yes, the standard deduction is actually a credit in itself, as many people who claim it (I want to say 45%, but I can't open these docs at work [1], but in 2005, it was 65% [2]). So, what is your point?
That the rich claim the deduction? Of course they do, they are most likely to itemize.
Right, so are you denying that itemizing benefits the rich more than the poor? Would you prefer the IRS just say, from now on there is no more itemizing, and you must all take the $6200 standard deduction? Who would end up paying even more taxes then?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 2:27:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 2:19:23 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/19/2015 12:21:04 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
ford, to me, this issue is best described in this analogy:

I eat at a restaurant everyday in my Aramani business suit.
I see someone who has never been there before, but looks down on their luck (tattered clothes).
The manager gives him a discounted meal while charging me full price (i.e. using my payment to help the man)


Now, while I can think of many reasons why this is not a "big deal", as I don't need the money. It is a bit odd that I will never get a discounted meal, and, in fact, so many people are upset with me, because I use a credit card and get "bonus points" to redeem.

It is not the issue that the rich pay more, it is that the credits allow others pay less and are exclusive to them.
Another analogy to highlight the difference:
At a gas station, the sign price is $3/gallon. I pull up in a BMW and I am charged the sign price, but the guy who drives a 98 ford Taurus only pay $2.75/gallon, because they get a discount on the gas tax.
This is different then me being charged more because I drive a BMW, like I pay $3.25/gallon (more than the sign says).

From all these posts, it looks as though the US needs some serious tax reform - what an absolute mess between state and federal governments.
There are differences, but so what?
The US is a federal system, so there should be a difference between federal laws and state laws. (and, don't forget some cities have taxes, too)

The rich are certainly able to make more benefit of what is on offer, but phase out rules seem to always kick in as incomes increase.......they don't kick in if you pass a threshold on the way down. At the end of the day, its hard to get a tax refund if you don't pay tax in the first place. The rich get more available tax benefits due to the fact they pay more tax rather than any special treatment on behalf of them being rich.

And, due to the progessive tax system, an extra deduction of $3,000 to a rich man is a tax savings of over $1,000, while the deduction to the bottom bracket is only $300.
My work here is, finally, done.
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 2:28:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 12:21:04 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
ford, to me, this issue is best described in this analogy:

I eat at a restaurant everyday in my Aramani business suit.
I see someone who has never been there before, but looks down on their luck (tattered clothes).
The manager gives him a discounted meal while charging me full price (i.e. using my payment to help the man)


Now, while I can think of many reasons why this is not a "big deal", as I don't need the money. It is a bit odd that I will never get a discounted meal, and, in fact, so many people are upset with me, because I use a credit card and get "bonus points" to redeem.

It is not the issue that the rich pay more, it is that the credits allow others pay less and are exclusive to them.
Another analogy to highlight the difference:
At a gas station, the sign price is $3/gallon. I pull up in a BMW and I am charged the sign price, but the guy who drives a 98 ford Taurus only pay $2.75/gallon, because they get a discount on the gas tax.
This is different then me being charged more because I drive a BMW, like I pay $3.25/gallon (more than the sign says).

Similarly, the other side of this analogy is that you walk into a bank who offers you a savings account with an awesome interest rate, say 5%. But you have to keep at least one million dollars in it at all times. This bank would offer the same deal to the guy in tattered clothes driving the 98 Taurus, if he had the money. But he obviously doesn't, so you are the one who can benefit from the special offer. It's accessible to you, but not him. Just like the lower gas price and cheap food is accessible to him, but not you.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 2:30:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 2:25:03 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 2/19/2015 9:27:00 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Are you aware of how taxes are computed?
Yes.
The standard deduction is $6200.
So, if I want to claim any of my charitable donations, I must itemize my deductions.
That means, my charitiable donates are added to other deductions (state income taxes paid, real estate taxes paid, health insurance deduction (which is regressively claimed), casualty losses, mortgage interest deductions, and others) MUST be more than $6200. Otherwise, I am leaving money on the table.
Yes, the standard deduction is actually a credit in itself, as many people who claim it (I want to say 45%, but I can't open these docs at work [1], but in 2005, it was 65% [2]). So, what is your point?
That the rich claim the deduction? Of course they do, they are most likely to itemize.
Right, so are you denying that itemizing benefits the rich more than the poor?
I never denied this. But, that is not the point. There is nothing stopping the poor from itemizing, they are just foolish if they do.

Would you prefer the IRS just say, from now on there is no more itemizing, and you must all take the $6200 standard deduction?
I would not prefer that, but that would be equal. Similarly, saying everyone MUST itemize would be equal. The issue is not what is more beneficial, it is what is allowed.

Who would end up paying even more taxes then?
Probably the middle class and the working rich.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 2:33:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 2:28:52 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 2/19/2015 12:21:04 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
ford, to me, this issue is best described in this analogy:

I eat at a restaurant everyday in my Aramani business suit.
I see someone who has never been there before, but looks down on their luck (tattered clothes).
The manager gives him a discounted meal while charging me full price (i.e. using my payment to help the man)


Now, while I can think of many reasons why this is not a "big deal", as I don't need the money. It is a bit odd that I will never get a discounted meal, and, in fact, so many people are upset with me, because I use a credit card and get "bonus points" to redeem.

It is not the issue that the rich pay more, it is that the credits allow others pay less and are exclusive to them.
Another analogy to highlight the difference:
At a gas station, the sign price is $3/gallon. I pull up in a BMW and I am charged the sign price, but the guy who drives a 98 ford Taurus only pay $2.75/gallon, because they get a discount on the gas tax.
This is different then me being charged more because I drive a BMW, like I pay $3.25/gallon (more than the sign says).

Similarly, the other side of this analogy is that you walk into a bank who offers you a savings account with an awesome interest rate, say 5%. But you have to keep at least one million dollars in it at all times. This bank would offer the same deal to the guy in tattered clothes driving the 98 Taurus, if he had the money. But he obviously doesn't, so you are the one who can benefit from the special offer. It's accessible to you, but not him. Just like the lower gas price and cheap food is accessible to him, but not you.

Not quite the same. Same effect, but not in enforcement.
The tax code is the LAW, and the LAW says that, based on your income, you do not qualify for deductions. That is the issue I have.
Yes, it applies to all in that situation, but for people to say these are loopholes for the rich, then these are loopholes for the poor. But, the fact that the rich cannot use these loopholes that the poor can by law, is my issue.
My work here is, finally, done.
gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 2:40:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 2:33:29 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 2/19/2015 2:28:52 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 2/19/2015 12:21:04 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
ford, to me, this issue is best described in this analogy:

I eat at a restaurant everyday in my Aramani business suit.
I see someone who has never been there before, but looks down on their luck (tattered clothes).
The manager gives him a discounted meal while charging me full price (i.e. using my payment to help the man)


Now, while I can think of many reasons why this is not a "big deal", as I don't need the money. It is a bit odd that I will never get a discounted meal, and, in fact, so many people are upset with me, because I use a credit card and get "bonus points" to redeem.

It is not the issue that the rich pay more, it is that the credits allow others pay less and are exclusive to them.
Another analogy to highlight the difference:
At a gas station, the sign price is $3/gallon. I pull up in a BMW and I am charged the sign price, but the guy who drives a 98 ford Taurus only pay $2.75/gallon, because they get a discount on the gas tax.
This is different then me being charged more because I drive a BMW, like I pay $3.25/gallon (more than the sign says).

Similarly, the other side of this analogy is that you walk into a bank who offers you a savings account with an awesome interest rate, say 5%. But you have to keep at least one million dollars in it at all times. This bank would offer the same deal to the guy in tattered clothes driving the 98 Taurus, if he had the money. But he obviously doesn't, so you are the one who can benefit from the special offer. It's accessible to you, but not him. Just like the lower gas price and cheap food is accessible to him, but not you.

Not quite the same. Same effect, but not in enforcement.
The tax code is the LAW, and the LAW says that, based on your income, you do not qualify for deductions. That is the issue I have.
Yes, it applies to all in that situation, but for people to say these are loopholes for the rich, then these are loopholes for the poor. But, the fact that the rich cannot use these loopholes that the poor can by law, is my issue.

Why is it an issue if the rich don't have access to allowances that are designed to alleviate poverty, when they are not poor? Or are you just pointing out that the poor have nothing to grumble about as they have all the same legal rights.
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...