The Tax Thread

Bamabuzzard · Apr 1, 2019

Bamaro said:
It seems fairly obvious that the latest tax law has been a failure as to having any kind of positive effect on the deficit/debt (or helping the middle class). How long can we sustain a trillion dollar yearly deficit? What can we do when the next recession hits since we are already spending like we are in a recession? We're in a deep hole and digging as fast as we can.:eek2:

I think it's too early to make a broad brush conclusion about it, especially about not helping the middle class. I've now done right at 60 tax returns mixed with mostly middle class people and a few upper middle class and every one paid less taxes than the previous year. As I've stated in another post, it seems middle class families with kids are benefiting the most. But even middle class families without kids, at least the ones I've done, paid less in taxes. So how is that not benefiting them? They're keeping more money in their pocket each pay period.

From another thread:

Bamabuzzard said:
I've done approximately 50 tax returns so far and here's what I'm finding:

*Overall, it appears people are having less withheld from their paychecks each pay period. Whether you're poor, middle class, upper middle class etc. I've seen that consistently through the ones I've done and am currently doing.

*People with multiple kids in the middle class bracket and under are seeing bigger refunds, even though they had less taxes withheld from their checks compared to last year. Which probably means they'll need to speak with their accountant and discuss having their withholdings per pay period adjusted downward.

*People without qualifying kids or no kids at all are getting very mad because their refund has either gone away, significantly reduced or they owe and are thinking "I am paying more in taxes". When in reality, most I've had with this situation didn't pay more in taxes compared to last year. They just didn't pay as much in and use the size of their refund as the basis to determine if they "did good" or not. I've already had about 8-10 conversations with people trying to explain this misconception.

TIDE-HSV · Apr 1, 2019

Bamabuzzard said:
I think it's too early to make a broad brush conclusion about it, especially about not helping the middle class. I've now done right at 60 tax returns mixed with mostly middle class people and a few upper middle class and every one paid less taxes than the previous year. As I've stated in another post, it seems middle class families with kids are benefiting the most. But even middle class families without kids, at least the ones I've done, paid less in taxes. So how is that not benefiting them? They're keeping more money in their pocket each pay period.

From another thread:

It depends greatly on where you live. Were any of these people cut off by the $10K tax deduction?

Bamabuzzard · Apr 2, 2019

TIDE-HSV said:
It depends greatly on where you live. Were any of these people cut off by the $10K tax deduction?

Yes, some of my upper middle class clients were impacted by this. However, even still, if you looked at their tax liability from previous tax year and compared it to their 2018 tax liability. The majority owed less taxes. I haven't seen where it's making or breaking anyone just yet.

Bodhisattva · Apr 2, 2019

My preference would be for a flat tax with minimal (if any) deductions that was set at a level to cover the constitutional functions of the federal government.

What's everyone's thoughts on deductions. Mortgage interest? Charitable contributions? Business spending on equipment, et. al.? What are worthwhile in your opinion?

Bamaro · Apr 2, 2019

Bodhisattva said:
My preference would be for a flat tax with minimal (if any) deductions that was set at a level to cover the constitutional functions of the federal government.

What's everyone's thoughts on deductions. Mortgage interest? Charitable contributions? Business spending on equipment, et. al.? What are worthwhile in your opinion?

Eliminate all except for charitable contributions. Still, there should be multiple brackets, not flat.

CharminTide · Apr 2, 2019

Bodhisattva said:
flat tax

Meaning that all income (assuming you're proposing an income tax) is taxed at the same rate? If so, that's a horribly regressive tax system.

set at a level to cover the constitutional functions of the federal government.

Similar to any statement by Ayn Rand, this sounds nice as a rhetorical proposition, but IMO would be entirely useless in the real world. There are few statements as vague as "provide for the common defense and general welfare." Even the people who wrote it couldn't agree on what it meant.

Bodhisattva · Apr 2, 2019

CharminTide said:
Meaning that all income (assuming you're proposing an income tax) is taxed at the same rate? If so, that's a horribly regressive tax system.

Same rate = fair IMO, even though I know it is a political nonstarter. Everyone should have skin in the game. IMO it's cowardly to say, "I want stuff and make the other guy pay for it." If you want X, you should be willing to pay your share for X.

Similar to any statement by Ayn Rand, this sounds nice as a rhetorical proposition, but IMO would be entirely useless in the real world. There are few statements as vague as "provide for the common defense and general welfare." Even the people who wrote it couldn't agree on what it meant.

Not sure what Rand has to do with this, but I believe the government should be limited to their enumerated powers. If you want government to do more - and maybe it should - then that's what amendments are for.

NationalTitles18 · Apr 2, 2019

If we set a floor as an exemption to paying income tax (say, $30k, give or take) I could support a moderate flat tax with no further deductions but the law/constitution would have to be written in an ironclad way.

rgw · Apr 2, 2019

I really can't stand constitution worshippers. It really wasn't that great of a document. I'm not saying it wasn't novel in it's time. The constitution established some things that have historical relevance but it arguably set the table for many of the problems we've faced over our country's history.

NationalTitles18 · Apr 2, 2019

rgw said:
I really can't stand constitution worshippers. It really wasn't that great of a document. I'm not saying it wasn't novel in it's time. The constitution established some things that have historical relevance but it arguably set the table for many of the problems we've faced over our country's history.

It set a better government in place than anything before it, so there's that.

crimsonaudio · Apr 2, 2019

NationalTitles17 said:
If we set a floor as an exemption to paying income tax (say, $30k, give or take) I could support a moderate flat tax with no further deductions but the law/constitution would have to be written in an ironclad way.

It's hard for me to rectify someone having the ability to vote while not having any skin in the game. Some modern policies have come from pandering to those who have no skin in the game.

It's tough, but everyone has to pay if they expect their vote to count, otherwise the masses will focus on self interests. It's not just the wealthy that try to maximize the results from the system.

NationalTitles18 · Apr 2, 2019

crimsonaudio said:
It's hard for me to rectify someone having the ability to vote while not having any skin in the game. Some modern policies have come from pandering to those who have no skin in the game.

It's tough, but everyone has to pay if they expect their vote to count, otherwise the masses will focus on self interests. It's not just the wealthy that try to maximize the results from the system.

Hence a flat tax across the board with no deductions other than saying to the very poorest among us that we see you struggling and are not going to take from you. I've always had this notion that the very poor (so maybe you make the number lower) shouldn't pay an income tax. It reminds me too much of the king taking away food from the poor and they go hungry while the king eats very well. I do understand your opinion, though.

Go Bama · Apr 2, 2019

CharminTide said:
Meaning that all income (assuming you're proposing an income tax) is taxed at the same rate? If so, that's a horribly regressive tax system.

I thought a regressive tax was when the tax rate decreases as the income increases.

TIDE-HSV · Apr 2, 2019

Go Bama said:
I thought a regressive tax was when the tax rate decreases as the income increases.

No, it's when the tax takes a larger percentage of income, the less you earn The sales tax (or VAT) is the classic example. A progressive tax takes a higher percentage of income, the more you earn, like the income tax...

CharminTide · Apr 3, 2019

Bodhisattva said:
Same rate = fair IMO, even though I know it is a political nonstarter. Everyone should have skin in the game. IMO it's cowardly to say, "I want stuff and make the other guy pay for it." If you want X, you should be willing to pay your share for X.

The Libertarian/Randian concept of fairness is always fascinating to me. It's like the only thing that matters is mathematical equivalency, even if the functional impact of enforcing that equivalency has an exaggerated negative correlation with income. A $1 tax on someone who has $10 would considerably affect their ability to secure food and shelter, while that same $1 tax on someone with $10 million would have no impact on their life whatsoever. This is obvious. But you (plural) still see that as fair merely because the absolute number is the same no matter one's income. Thing is, doing so requires you to ignore that the consequences on the individual couldn't be less equivalent across income levels, and to acknowledge that you endorse a system that becomes increasingly punitive the poorer you are.

Doing what you claim would lead to the widest class gulf this country has ever seen. We wouldn't (and shouldn't) survive it.

Not sure what Rand has to do with this, but I believe the government should be limited to their enumerated powers. If you want government to do more - and maybe it should - then that's what amendments are for.

Again, you seem to think that the enumerated powers are crystal clear and explicit, when in fact they are extraordinary vague. Everything the government does now can find some defense in those stated powers. While this statement may sound like a declarative solution to you, it is not.

crimsonaudio · Apr 3, 2019

NationalTitles17 said:
Hence a flat tax across the board with no deductions other than saying to the very poorest among us that we see you struggling and are not going to take from you. I've always had this notion that the very poor (so maybe you make the number lower) shouldn't pay an income tax. It reminds me too much of the king taking away food from the poor and they go hungry while the king eats very well. I do understand your opinion, though.

Yah, I've been there, I totally get it. I'm just saying that if everyone had skin in the game, they'd be more likely to get involved, vote, etc. They'd also be more vocal about policy.

I think anyone who can vote people in who will directly take and spend our money in the form of taxation should pay something. While I have a beef with the progressive tax system, it works well in this scenario - assuming those in the lowest tax brackets pay something...

BamaFlum · Apr 3, 2019

I wonder if there is an algorithm that would allow for a progressive flat tax. IOW, an sliding scale percentage that isn’t just arbitrarily fixed percentages.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bodhisattva · Apr 3, 2019

CharminTide said:
The Libertarian/Randian concept of fairness is always fascinating to me. It's like the only thing that matters is mathematical equivalency, even if the functional impact of enforcing that equivalency has an exaggerated negative correlation with income. A $1 tax on someone who has $10 would considerably affect their ability to secure food and shelter, while that same $1 tax on someone with $10 million would have no impact on their life whatsoever. This is obvious. But you (plural) still see that as fair merely because the absolute number is the same no matter one's income. Thing is, doing so requires you to ignore that the consequences on the individual couldn't be less equivalent across income levels, and to acknowledge that you endorse a system that becomes increasingly punitive the poorer you are.

Doing what you claim would lead to the widest class gulf this country has ever seen. We wouldn't (and shouldn't) survive it.

Math is fair. 2+2 = 4. It’s four you and me and everyone else. It doesn’t play favorites. It doesn’t allow for the arbitrary whim of a politicians or their fanboys. It always amuses me when the leftists/socialists/Marxists scream about the GOP rewarding some and punishing others, yet they want the government to reward some and punish others. They have the same mentality as the Trumpers. My side is good; your side is bad. My big government is good; your big government is bad. My tortured logic on the Constitution is good; your tortured logic on the Constitution is bad.

Again, you seem to think that the enumerated powers are crystal clear and explicit, when in fact they are extraordinary vague. Everything the government does now can find some defense in those stated powers. While this statement may sound like a declarative solution to you, it is not.

The Constitution is clear that we are supposed to have a small, limited federal government. Claiming one cannot understand the Constitution so it means whatever one wants it to mean is not particularly honest.

bama_wayne1 · Apr 3, 2019

BamaFlum said:
I wonder if there is an algorithm that would allow for a progressive flat tax. IOW, an sliding scale percentage that isn’t just arbitrarily fixed percentages.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wouldn't that by definition be a progressive tax rate?

Bodhisattva · Apr 3, 2019

crimsonaudio said:
It's hard for me to rectify someone having the ability to vote while not having any skin in the game. Some modern policies have come from pandering to those who have no skin in the game.

It's tough, but everyone has to pay if they expect their vote to count, otherwise the masses will focus on self interests. It's not just the wealthy that try to maximize the results from the system.

One of the reasons I like a flat tax is that, because everyone has skin in the game, it will temper the political urge to spend recklessly. Want a wall? Want a nanny state? Want a pony for everyone? Ok, your tribe has to pay for it too. Some people like pandering politicians, though .... as long as it's for their tribe.

The Tax Thread

FB Moderator

Senior Administrator

FB Moderator

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

Suspended

TideFans Legend

Administrator

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

Senior Administrator

Hall of Fame

Administrator

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

All-American

Hall of Fame

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!