??? First of all...I am the one saying we need to limit the standard deduction. Lower the marginal rates for the lowest marginal rate. So that person would be paying taxes even if they decided to take a $40K loss in their business and hope the business can survive it. If you think a person can run losses year in year out on a business and survive without help from others...you are just wrong. In fact the irs would likely come a calling to see if you have a legitimate business or a hobby. I have never bought a piece of equipment based on taxes. Outside of the equipment we purchased to start our practice. I have never financed any equipment. Purchases like this and payroll are business expenses. Shoot...I paid off our loans losing the business interest expense so I could pay more taxes lol. This is about personal taxes and the deductions/credits that go with them. I have stated a broad position that we should have a lower marginal rate for the bottom but a smaller amount that can be deducted away outside charity as I believe charity as a whole is far more efficient than government (I can understand if you disagree and that is a fair disagreement). Mind you that giving to charity is giving away your earned income for good causes (we can disagree all day long on what a good cause is but it is giving money to others for what one perceives will better their community/state/country). I am all for people investing and building business to better their community and economy. Trying to equate business expenses to personal income deductions/credits is just not the same thing.
Dude ... that situation is a paper loss, not a real loss. Business use it all the time. I use it. My very Republican parents us it. Hell, they call their accountant every November to scheme a (legal) way to get a "break even" or "loss" on their business, and there are other way to get there. Equipment purchases work the best, though. Anyway, there is nothing to "survive". If you buy $40K in needed equipment in December, and finance it, there is no real "loss". You can claim all $40,000 for that year even if your first payment wasn't due til January. Jeff Bezos and Amazon have questions... I mean, I'm told Twitter is worth $56 Billion even though they rarely have a profitable year... but you can run your business however you want. Nothing wrong with making decision to legally avoid taxes, IMO. And I'm reminding you that when you use pass through LLCs, business income and deductions become part of your personal taxes. It literally says that a Schedule C is an individual tax form in that IRS section I quoted. That is simply a fact. It's pretty annoying that you keep trying to convince me that a deduction I can take against my personal income isn't really a personal tax deduction ... not sure why you think you can Bullshit your way out of this like that.
LOL… If you are buying equipment and spending money to break even on your business income. You are not running your business very well. If you are investing on needed expenses then that is a different story. Good news…your example looks friend now used up his depreciation but apparently will get some interest to put against his revenue in the future years rather than take that money home and pay taxes on it. But if that is how they say to run their business and it is necessary equipment to stay afloat. Might be worth it. Spending money on unnecessary equipment is just dumb business. But if it is necessary…when they make $100K on top of the $100K they pay themselves. They will pay plenty in taxes.
Listen. Carefully. It’s a bullshit statistic because it includes retire folks, students, and poor people in poverty in the denominator. Here’s a clue. Reduce poverty and increase the tax base. No that’s not your answer. Your answer is to tax poor people, retired folks, and students barely earning money. My diagnosis is that you’re psychopath that wants to punish poor people in poverty to get a pound of flesh from them. “Skin” in the game you call it appropriately. I call it revolting.
Listen carefully. You lied. We just disagree and it is not a BS statistic. It is reality. You can’t cut income taxes for almost half the country since they already pay no income taxes. That is a problem.
The actual problem is that many don't earn enough money to pay income taxes, barely getting by. Seemingly you want to worsen their situation. The bigger issue of tax fairness is the Bezos, Bloombergs, musks and trumps paying virtually no income taxes.
Where we agree is that we need to get rid of the carried interest/ISO loophole where executives can get paid with stock options and hold to cap gains rates instead of ordinary income rates. That needs to be fixed. Give me a break on I want people to make less and worsen their situation. That is just nonsense. But yes I want everyone to pay something. Even if it is small. We need accountability. And that is how you get it. I do not want to leave my kids crazy debt. Debt they should not be saddled with.
If u want poor people at the bottom of the economic spectrum who have little to nothing to pay income taxes then u are indeed worsening their situation. That's how the math works and to say otherwise is disingenuous.
I have said that a small standard deduction is fine. But we need most people to be contributing. That is how you get accountability.
If u said that, I missed it. I agree to an extent, but only as it applies to those that have it. As the saying goes, " you can't get blood out of a turnip".
Rishi Sunak Wins Vote to Become U.K.’s Next Prime Minister After Liz Truss Resigns Well it looks like they finally put up an actual competent adult.
Post 91 in this thread. But I have held we all need to pay more for a while. Right now the government can’t control its spending. It needs accountability. With that I am for a simplified code and removing the loopholes like carried interest and ISOs. The problem is that every time we get tax reform from the federal government everyone starts whining about tax cuts for the rich. Reality is Trump did some good and some bad. He expanded the child tax credit cutting taxes for lower income and knocking more people off the tax rolls. And he also capped the SALT deduction making some higher income earners lose a massive tax advantage. But all we heard was his tax cuts were for the rich. Reality is they did help simplify parts of the code. They helped lower income folks and hurt certain higher income folks. But at the same time they really did very little to help fix the big picture. They were not some handout to the rich like so many want to believe.
The problem isnt people aren’t paying taxes at the bottom it’s that people don’t make enough money. You just aren’t able to follow the nuance. If we need more tax money it should come from people who have money not people who don’t. Your ideas are cruel and quite frankly simple minded. You’re just repeating some talking point of a BS statistic without giving any thought to it. Nothing new from you honestly.
I have often wondered, just pure speculation, that tax rates have an impact on income. When taxes on the wealthy are high, then it makes less sense for a company to pay executives a lot more because much of it goes to the government. If upper income rates are low, companies will pay them more, at the expense of lower incomes. If taxes are cut among the lower incomes, instead of amounting in higher take home pay, companies can afford to pay less, the balance going to either higher incomes if their taxes are lower or else higher profits What made me wonder was years ago reading how normal workers pensions have been largely gutted, and pension funds defunded based upon optimistic growth projections, while at the same time executive pensions have become much more lucrative. Are the two events completely unrelated, or is there some causality between the two? I realize that the above, if true, tends to represent a failure of capitalism, free markets and market efficiency. I’m don’t know if I totally buy into my musings above, but I don’t dismiss them either. I’ve seen enough head scratching inefficiency and grift in the area of American executive compensation that I maintain a high degree of cynicism.
Thanks for your opinion, but I literally said “needed equipment” in the post you quoted, so it makes your rant entirely irrelevant. Now, please get back to trying to convince me that a deduction that can be used on my personal income tax return to offset my personal salary, and pay less taxes, isn’t a personal tax deduction. That was way more entertaining.
I say we go straight Roth to simplify things. Like insurance we need complication though. So that is not going to happen.
You added needed after I pointed out how dumb it would be to purchase equipment just to reduce taxes. Your first example in 158 absolutely does not reference needed equipment. At least you caught on and understand people do not purchase equipment for taxes if they are running an efficient business. Now get back to deflecting and discussing business expenses.
