Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

I would need an example to work with to better discuss. I am not very familiar with the corporate tax code, where I think most of what I might be inclined to describe as "actual loopholes" exist. I am somewhat familiar with the individual tax code (but not a tax preparation professional).

I cannot think of a single example of a deduction or credit that I would describe as a loophole off the top of my head, especially not one that is open primarily to high income earners. Most deductions and tax incentives, besides sales tax deductions and mortgage interest deductions, are biased toward lower income earners.

For example, those in the 15% or lower marginal brackets pay no taxes on long-term capital gains or qualified dividends. So, a 70-year old grandmother who lives on $40k of Social Security, her dead husband's surviving spouse pension and dividends from McDonald's, Microsoft and GE stock gets to take advantage of a "loophole" that the guy making $200k in a sales position cannot.

You also have phase-outs for quite a few credits and deductions. In other words, if you make more than $X taxable income or AGI, you cannot qualify for the deduction or credit. That negatively affects higher income earners while positively affecting lower income earners (and/or encourages people to shuffle or hide income).

I can think of several of those but not one that says "you must make at least $X to qualify."

My view on "the right amount" of taxation is currently in flux based on my evolving understanding of what taxes ultimately do in the current US monetary system - but I have at least two other threads I have killed off with my discussions on that topic that we can revisit.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Rather than cluttering up this thread, I agree with your proposal. Point me to the threads, let's go!

fooger03

iTrader: (2)

I've apparently missed the last 24 hour of this thread -

I would like to point out/identify one fact that has been overlooked previously.

There is no such thing as "private" health insurance in the US in the true form of the word.

"private" suggests that the insurance corporation is free to act on their own will. No health insurance company has been free to act on their own will in a very long time.

Health insurance was "governmentized" when it became illegal for the insurance companies to drop policies on people based on health.

Health insurance was further "governmentized" when it became illegal for the insurance companies to drasticallly increase premiums on people based on health.

Once that happened, health insurance companies had to increase premiums on EVERYBODY in order to stay in business.

When smart / healthy people realize this, they stop buying health insurance and start paying for their own health care costs at a dramatic savings.

When healthy people stop buying expensive insurance, the cost of insurance dramatically increases AGAIN.


Think about what would happen to your car insurance rates if the government stepped in the same way:

Everyone will be required to have comprehensive/collision/liability at 100/300

Your insurance rates can increase no more than 10% over average regardless of accident history.

It doesn't matter if you choose to drive a Miata or a Maseratti, your insurance rate stays the same.

Here's the final kicker - You are not required to buy auto insurance, but if you get into an accident and you can't afford to pay for it, the government will determine how much you can *afford* to pay and then will pay for the remaining costs of ALL PARTIES INVOLVED - including yourself

But you can't call it government insurance, because it's still going to be the job of "private" companies to insure drivers.

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

sry im not on topic with everyone else by postin this
but HOLY CRAP
i just noticed how much RP has improved

olderguy

iTrader: (19)

Romney needs to find those six people that lost faith in him and beg forgiveness

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

^^^

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

http://www.mnn.com/health/fitness-we...mental-decline

This is an interesting read. A very interesting read. opcorn:

gearhead_318

iTrader: (1)

Yet is still isn't federally legal. WTF gives?

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

http://qconline.com/archives/qco/display.php?id=575952

So, in Illinois you are now required to show ID to buy drain cleaner because it contains acid and acid was used to attack someone a few months ago.

Those silly politicians.

Slightly distorted but....wtflolol?

gearhead_318

iTrader: (1)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirh...oogle-problem/

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Santorum's really just this race's Huckabee though Gearhead.

Once the primaries get to coastal states, he's SOL. We both know all the candidates are going to tear him a new one blasting constant ads with nothing but what Santorum has said in the past.

(Ninjar edit) And besides, if Santorum goes up against Obama, there's no way Obama would lose. I don't think the Republicans are stupid enough to go for that.

gearhead_318

iTrader: (1)

But you would, wouldn't you?

Yeah, Santorum isn't a serious candidate, he's kida just waisting money.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Goddamnit, playing Palin isn't fair Gearhead :(

But point taken. Seriously, I'll bet anyone here $10, with Brainy or another third party holding the money that if Santorum wins the nom, Obama wins the election.

gearhead_318

iTrader: (1)

I'll bet $10 Obama wins the 2012 election, although I don't see another "Palin" style VP. That was a horrible move by McCain, showing he could not be Pres. IMO.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

The only candidate I think can beat Obama is Ron Paul, so....

That's one bet I'd have to decline . But completely agreed with McCain. That was insanity to choose Palin as VP.

(Ninjar edit) Hell, the only candidate I'd want to beat Obama is RP. The rest are substantially worse than Obama IMO.

(Not-so-ninjar Edit so I don't post back to back)



If you can ignore the ads, Penn has a few interesting points in this video.

(Not so ninjar Edit 3)



What the Brainy?

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Well, time for me to head out, but I wanted to post an article with a bit of analysis. This is what I debate with a lot of the time with you guys in here in politics about.

http://news.yahoo.com/ca-judge-deems...003506015.html

The judge rules "You guys aren't at a university function and are exercising your constitutional rights. Stop suing the university for the assault, sue the person who assaulted you for the assault."

The media proceeds to do....this to that part of the story.

No, seriously. That part of the story is the biggest non-story ever, and it's starting to get blown up into something...utterly ridiculous. There's more, but instead of actually focusing on what could be fruitful and thought-provoking, and focusing on what the goddamn problem is, I am seeing a lot of outlets just focus on this...drivel about the story for easy reads and views. It's crap.

There are serious concerns to me in the full story. There's some seriously bad Brainy that went down that is being described by students. But the Brainying media jumps on....this....

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

How else is the Cartel going to stay in business? they are too big too fail.

Vashthestampede

iTrader: (17)

FFS!! You guys are even posting in this bitch throughout the night!!! I cant keep current!!

olderguy

iTrader: (19)

But you can't require identification to vote

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/...ion-of-powers/