Mortgage interest deduction going away
- Thread starter GROUCHO MARX
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Panda, renting to yourself makes all kinds of expenses that are not tax deductible ..deductible. It's much more legit if you have a multi-unit property that you also owner occupy.
Water & Sewer
Trash
..and the list goes on.
..but I'll add a sidewinder to this..
Quote:
I think you could even do a little more figuring and rent the property out to yourself for only the exact amount which is tax-deductible(interest+taxes), which would obviously change from year to year as you paid the property off and started paying less interest and more principal.
My experience and observations cause me to conclude that property taxes tend to soak up losses in interest deductions over a 30 year period. Now (as in light of our recent debacle), I'd say that the curve will beat a 10 year mortgage out on increased tax costs.
Example: My FIL's mortgage was $240/month (bought in the late 60's) ..by the time it was paid off (sold slightly before payoff) his local tax burden was $220/month. A wash over the near 30 year period.
Water & Sewer
Trash
..and the list goes on.
..but I'll add a sidewinder to this..
Quote:
I think you could even do a little more figuring and rent the property out to yourself for only the exact amount which is tax-deductible(interest+taxes), which would obviously change from year to year as you paid the property off and started paying less interest and more principal.
My experience and observations cause me to conclude that property taxes tend to soak up losses in interest deductions over a 30 year period. Now (as in light of our recent debacle), I'd say that the curve will beat a 10 year mortgage out on increased tax costs.
Example: My FIL's mortgage was $240/month (bought in the late 60's) ..by the time it was paid off (sold slightly before payoff) his local tax burden was $220/month. A wash over the near 30 year period.
Last edited:
Gary, I know. I file tax for my parent's apartment complex that they also live in, and a co-owner of this complex.
I agree that your expense is now deductible, but the rent you pay yourself is also taxable because you are now making money off your own rent as your business income, but the rent you pay is not deductible as a personal living expense.
This only makes sense if you rent your own property as a business that you make money from, might as well set up a fraction of your mortgage interest and home expense as business expense directly. What you need to do is setup the apartment complex's expense as common expense with the fraction you do not live in, and the expense that is not your unit related with 100% allowance.
Just a warning: IRS watch these kind of behaviors and can easily trigger an audit (deducting home expense as business expense), and really check if you dedicate the % of area as claimed with a home visit.
I agree that your expense is now deductible, but the rent you pay yourself is also taxable because you are now making money off your own rent as your business income, but the rent you pay is not deductible as a personal living expense.
This only makes sense if you rent your own property as a business that you make money from, might as well set up a fraction of your mortgage interest and home expense as business expense directly. What you need to do is setup the apartment complex's expense as common expense with the fraction you do not live in, and the expense that is not your unit related with 100% allowance.
Just a warning: IRS watch these kind of behaviors and can easily trigger an audit (deducting home expense as business expense), and really check if you dedicate the % of area as claimed with a home visit.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
I just tally the total expenses and the total income. I let my accountant handle the rest. Nowhere near the total expenses gets charged off of our income.
Don't think that this truly requires an accountant. I just can't navigate the forms well enough. I tried turbo tax one year. It said that I owed $425. I paid it ..they sent it back to me (it was a double data entry of my $425) ..and then hit me for a penalty for late taxes
I paid my >$500 for all forms and filings for all persons filing in the household ..and got $2900 back the next year.
Don't think that this truly requires an accountant. I just can't navigate the forms well enough. I tried turbo tax one year. It said that I owed $425. I paid it ..they sent it back to me (it was a double data entry of my $425) ..and then hit me for a penalty for late taxes
I paid my >$500 for all forms and filings for all persons filing in the household ..and got $2900 back the next year.
And your discombobulated precompensation clawback adjustment will be reevaluated according to schedule CVII part b.
Doesn't everyone realize this is all just a jobs program for bureaucrats? What does society gain from saddling everyone with such complex system?
Doesn't everyone realize this is all just a jobs program for bureaucrats? What does society gain from saddling everyone with such complex system?
Originally Posted By: oilyriser
And your discombobulated precompensation clawback adjustment will be reevaluated according to schedule CVII part b.
Doesn't everyone realize this is all just a jobs program for bureaucrats? What does society gain from saddling everyone with such complex system?
Society as a whole doesn't, but those with enough money for lobbyists gain a lot.
And your discombobulated precompensation clawback adjustment will be reevaluated according to schedule CVII part b.
Doesn't everyone realize this is all just a jobs program for bureaucrats? What does society gain from saddling everyone with such complex system?
Society as a whole doesn't, but those with enough money for lobbyists gain a lot.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Originally Posted By: oilyriser
What does society gain from saddling everyone with such complex system?
Plausible deniability. If you can't dazzle them with brilliance ..baffle them with .....
It's a filter. If you can figure your way through it and gain from the loopholes in the process, you won't blow the cover of those affording you the advantages.
Remember: Taxes are for little people - Leona Helmsley
I'm with you (and, oddly someone like Tempest too) when it comes to taxation. I just don't believe that cost redistribution is any less commie/socialist than wealth redistribution. They're both manipulations that attempt to leave someone holding the bag while others do not. A simplified rational tax system would really make the true costs of things much more apparent. It would also eliminate so much finagling just to avoid them ..and all the efforts to promote a system that is unfair to "someone else as long as I'm advantaged".
What does society gain from saddling everyone with such complex system?
Plausible deniability. If you can't dazzle them with brilliance ..baffle them with .....
It's a filter. If you can figure your way through it and gain from the loopholes in the process, you won't blow the cover of those affording you the advantages.
Remember: Taxes are for little people - Leona Helmsley
I'm with you (and, oddly someone like Tempest too) when it comes to taxation. I just don't believe that cost redistribution is any less commie/socialist than wealth redistribution. They're both manipulations that attempt to leave someone holding the bag while others do not. A simplified rational tax system would really make the true costs of things much more apparent. It would also eliminate so much finagling just to avoid them ..and all the efforts to promote a system that is unfair to "someone else as long as I'm advantaged".
Quote:
A simplified rational tax system would really make the true costs of things much more apparent.
Indeed it would, but it's on the other hand. Since the tax code is so complex and no body understands it, it is very easy to say:"Look at those rich people with all of those loop holes!." We here it all the time in on the nightly propaganda and on this site.
Since the top 1% pay ~40% of the federal taxes, we know these tax loop holes amount to very little. And you would think that all these super rich people could afford better accountants to find all of these supposed loop holes, no? Since the bottom 50% pay about 3% of the income tax, it's apparent who has the better accountants....and I'm not talking about CPAs.
Having a simplified tax system would largely eliminate the evil boogeyman tax evaders and would cause more taxes on the lower wage earners. This is of course bad for politicians that depend upon class envy (since people would actually have to pay for tax increases which currently only burden the evil rich people) and wealth redistribution to get elected.
A simplified rational tax system would really make the true costs of things much more apparent.
Indeed it would, but it's on the other hand. Since the tax code is so complex and no body understands it, it is very easy to say:"Look at those rich people with all of those loop holes!." We here it all the time in on the nightly propaganda and on this site.
Since the top 1% pay ~40% of the federal taxes, we know these tax loop holes amount to very little. And you would think that all these super rich people could afford better accountants to find all of these supposed loop holes, no? Since the bottom 50% pay about 3% of the income tax, it's apparent who has the better accountants....and I'm not talking about CPAs.
Having a simplified tax system would largely eliminate the evil boogeyman tax evaders and would cause more taxes on the lower wage earners. This is of course bad for politicians that depend upon class envy (since people would actually have to pay for tax increases which currently only burden the evil rich people) and wealth redistribution to get elected.
Lower wage earners could be totally exempt. Start at $20k. Below that doesn't even need to spend time doing a return, or even thinking about it.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Quote:
Indeed it would, but it's on the other hand. Since the tax code is so complex and no body understands it, it is very easy to say:"Look at those rich people with all of those loop holes!." We here it all the time in on the nightly propaganda and on this site.
RiiiiiiiiiiiiIIIIIIIIIIIgggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhht
Indeed it would, but it's on the other hand. Since the tax code is so complex and no body understands it, it is very easy to say:"Look at those rich people with all of those loop holes!." We here it all the time in on the nightly propaganda and on this site.
RiiiiiiiiiiiiIIIIIIIIIIIgggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhht
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,591
I here you hear and their!
Originally Posted By: digitalSniperX1
He lives in Northwest Indiana....which means a 3,000 sq ft. luxury home is 40 grand...and that's fully assembled
Maybe in Gary, IN, but not in Crown Point, Merrillville, etc...it's way too [censored] expensive to live there. A 3K foot home is easily $350K.
He lives in Northwest Indiana....which means a 3,000 sq ft. luxury home is 40 grand...and that's fully assembled
Maybe in Gary, IN, but not in Crown Point, Merrillville, etc...it's way too [censored] expensive to live there. A 3K foot home is easily $350K.
Originally Posted By: ToyotaNSaturn
Originally Posted By: digitalSniperX1
He lives in Northwest Indiana....which means a 3,000 sq ft. luxury home is 40 grand...and that's fully assembled
Maybe in Gary, IN, but not in Crown Point, Merrillville, etc...it's way too [censored] expensive to live there. A 3K foot home is easily $350K.
-He- lives a few miles from the crossroads of the nation, (rt30 & rt41), in Schererville. There are a few subdivisions around Crown Point and St John with million dollar houses and then of course you can always step up to Munster.
Originally Posted By: digitalSniperX1
He lives in Northwest Indiana....which means a 3,000 sq ft. luxury home is 40 grand...and that's fully assembled
Maybe in Gary, IN, but not in Crown Point, Merrillville, etc...it's way too [censored] expensive to live there. A 3K foot home is easily $350K.
-He- lives a few miles from the crossroads of the nation, (rt30 & rt41), in Schererville. There are a few subdivisions around Crown Point and St John with million dollar houses and then of course you can always step up to Munster.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
A simplified rational tax system would really make the true costs of things much more apparent.
Indeed it would, but it's on the other hand. Since the tax code is so complex and no body understands it, it is very easy to say:"Look at those rich people with all of those loop holes!." We here it all the time in on the nightly propaganda and on this site.
Since the top 1% pay ~40% of the federal taxes, we know these tax loop holes amount to very little. And you would think that all these super rich people could afford better accountants to find all of these supposed loop holes, no? Since the bottom 50% pay about 3% of the income tax, it's apparent who has the better accountants....and I'm not talking about CPAs.
Having a simplified tax system would largely eliminate the evil boogeyman tax evaders and would cause more taxes on the lower wage earners. This is of course bad for politicians that depend upon class envy (since people would actually have to pay for tax increases which currently only burden the evil rich people) and wealth redistribution to get elected.
It’s just so unfair!!!
Let’s do a hypothetical example. We’ll look at two typical Americans. One is a fine upstanding corporate CEO making $30 million a year and the other a poor working slob making $30 thousand a year. We’ll look at the current tax plan and under a hypothetical consumption / federal sales tax system.
UNDER THE CURRENT PLAN:
The CEO may be paying a whopping 35% on that $30 million and that only leaves him $19.5 million to live on. Let’s say he spends $4.5 million a year to live on… You know pay the mortgage on the mansion, the car loan on the mayback, send the kids to Yale or Harvard, and maybe a few well deserved vacations to Hawaii and Europe. At the end of the year he’s left with $15 million to squirrel away for a rainy day or retirement.
The working slob may be paying an unfairly low 15% on his $30 thousand and that leaves him $25,500 to live on. He spends every dime he makes just trying to get by and if the kids plan on college, they are on their own. At the end of the year he’s left with $0 and hopefully no deeper in debt.
UNDER A HYPOTHETICAL CONSUMPTION / NATIONAL SALES TAX PLAN:
For this exercise let’s say the national consumption / sales tax is 25%.
The CEO still needs $4.5 million to support his life style so he spends $4.5 million a year and pays $1,125,000 a year in tax. FAR, FAR less than the $11.5 million he was paying per year. And now he’s left with $24,375,000 at the end of the year. A difference of +$9,375,000 left in his pocket.
The poor working slob still spends every dime he makes just trying to get by. But now he will pay 25% on his $30 thousand or $7500. Now he’s only left with $22,500 to live on… $3000 LESS than he had before and probably deeper in debt.
So you’re right! The low wage earner will finally be paying his fair share of taxes and the 1% club will get the break they deserve.
Quote:
A simplified rational tax system would really make the true costs of things much more apparent.
Indeed it would, but it's on the other hand. Since the tax code is so complex and no body understands it, it is very easy to say:"Look at those rich people with all of those loop holes!." We here it all the time in on the nightly propaganda and on this site.
Since the top 1% pay ~40% of the federal taxes, we know these tax loop holes amount to very little. And you would think that all these super rich people could afford better accountants to find all of these supposed loop holes, no? Since the bottom 50% pay about 3% of the income tax, it's apparent who has the better accountants....and I'm not talking about CPAs.
Having a simplified tax system would largely eliminate the evil boogeyman tax evaders and would cause more taxes on the lower wage earners. This is of course bad for politicians that depend upon class envy (since people would actually have to pay for tax increases which currently only burden the evil rich people) and wealth redistribution to get elected.
It’s just so unfair!!!
Let’s do a hypothetical example. We’ll look at two typical Americans. One is a fine upstanding corporate CEO making $30 million a year and the other a poor working slob making $30 thousand a year. We’ll look at the current tax plan and under a hypothetical consumption / federal sales tax system.
UNDER THE CURRENT PLAN:
The CEO may be paying a whopping 35% on that $30 million and that only leaves him $19.5 million to live on. Let’s say he spends $4.5 million a year to live on… You know pay the mortgage on the mansion, the car loan on the mayback, send the kids to Yale or Harvard, and maybe a few well deserved vacations to Hawaii and Europe. At the end of the year he’s left with $15 million to squirrel away for a rainy day or retirement.
The working slob may be paying an unfairly low 15% on his $30 thousand and that leaves him $25,500 to live on. He spends every dime he makes just trying to get by and if the kids plan on college, they are on their own. At the end of the year he’s left with $0 and hopefully no deeper in debt.
UNDER A HYPOTHETICAL CONSUMPTION / NATIONAL SALES TAX PLAN:
For this exercise let’s say the national consumption / sales tax is 25%.
The CEO still needs $4.5 million to support his life style so he spends $4.5 million a year and pays $1,125,000 a year in tax. FAR, FAR less than the $11.5 million he was paying per year. And now he’s left with $24,375,000 at the end of the year. A difference of +$9,375,000 left in his pocket.
The poor working slob still spends every dime he makes just trying to get by. But now he will pay 25% on his $30 thousand or $7500. Now he’s only left with $22,500 to live on… $3000 LESS than he had before and probably deeper in debt.
So you’re right! The low wage earner will finally be paying his fair share of taxes and the 1% club will get the break they deserve.
So the slob earns his $30,000 hauling Chinese around a warehouse. Where did the money to buy the forklift and build the warehouse come from? Right, from the millions the CEO squirreled away.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Since the top 1% pay ~40% of the federal taxes, we know these tax loop holes amount to very little. And you would think that all these super rich people could afford better accountants to find all of these supposed loop holes, no? Since the bottom 50% pay about 3% of the income tax, it's apparent who has the better accountants....and I'm not talking about CPAs.
Where is your proof that the bottom 50% has better accountants than the top 40%? What about all the income that has been hidden in off shore, equities that are not priced to market, and let's not forget the "living expense wrote off as business expense" that many business owners use?
The much higher popularity of leasing in Mercedes and BMW vs. a Toyota Corolla and Honda Civic should tell you something.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_gains.jpg
You are also looking at the % of PEOPLE vs % of tax paid, not % of national income vs % of tax paid. If the top 1% of the people make 40% of the nation's income and pay 40% of the tax, is that unfair? xlt4me already said it well, I'm not going to repeat that part.
Since the top 1% pay ~40% of the federal taxes, we know these tax loop holes amount to very little. And you would think that all these super rich people could afford better accountants to find all of these supposed loop holes, no? Since the bottom 50% pay about 3% of the income tax, it's apparent who has the better accountants....and I'm not talking about CPAs.
Where is your proof that the bottom 50% has better accountants than the top 40%? What about all the income that has been hidden in off shore, equities that are not priced to market, and let's not forget the "living expense wrote off as business expense" that many business owners use?
The much higher popularity of leasing in Mercedes and BMW vs. a Toyota Corolla and Honda Civic should tell you something.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_gains.jpg
You are also looking at the % of PEOPLE vs % of tax paid, not % of national income vs % of tax paid. If the top 1% of the people make 40% of the nation's income and pay 40% of the tax, is that unfair? xlt4me already said it well, I'm not going to repeat that part.
Quote:
You are also looking at the % of PEOPLE vs % of tax paid, not % of national income vs % of tax paid. If the top 1% of the people make 40% of the nation's income and pay 40% of the tax, is that unfair? xlt4me already said it well, I'm not going to repeat that part.
They made about 22% in 2006. As the economy tanks, they loose a greater percentage of their income.
ALL levels of wage earners have increased their income from 2000-2006. Revenues to the Federal Government have gone up due to this.
You are also looking at the % of PEOPLE vs % of tax paid, not % of national income vs % of tax paid. If the top 1% of the people make 40% of the nation's income and pay 40% of the tax, is that unfair? xlt4me already said it well, I'm not going to repeat that part.
They made about 22% in 2006. As the economy tanks, they loose a greater percentage of their income.
ALL levels of wage earners have increased their income from 2000-2006. Revenues to the Federal Government have gone up due to this.
Originally Posted By: xlt4me
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
A simplified rational tax system would really make the true costs of things much more apparent.
Indeed it would, but it's on the other hand. Since the tax code is so complex and no body understands it, it is very easy to say:"Look at those rich people with all of those loop holes!." We here it all the time in on the nightly propaganda and on this site.
Since the top 1% pay ~40% of the federal taxes, we know these tax loop holes amount to very little. And you would think that all these super rich people could afford better accountants to find all of these supposed loop holes, no? Since the bottom 50% pay about 3% of the income tax, it's apparent who has the better accountants....and I'm not talking about CPAs.
Having a simplified tax system would largely eliminate the evil boogeyman tax evaders and would cause more taxes on the lower wage earners. This is of course bad for politicians that depend upon class envy (since people would actually have to pay for tax increases which currently only burden the evil rich people) and wealth redistribution to get elected.
It’s just so unfair!!!
Let’s do a hypothetical example. We’ll look at two typical Americans. One is a fine upstanding corporate CEO making $30 million a year and the other a poor working slob making $30 thousand a year. We’ll look at the current tax plan and under a hypothetical consumption / federal sales tax system.
UNDER THE CURRENT PLAN:
The CEO may be paying a whopping 35% on that $30 million and that only leaves him $19.5 million to live on. Let’s say he spends $4.5 million a year to live on… You know pay the mortgage on the mansion, the car loan on the mayback, send the kids to Yale or Harvard, and maybe a few well deserved vacations to Hawaii and Europe. At the end of the year he’s left with $15 million to squirrel away for a rainy day or retirement.
The working slob may be paying an unfairly low 15% on his $30 thousand and that leaves him $25,500 to live on. He spends every dime he makes just trying to get by and if the kids plan on college, they are on their own. At the end of the year he’s left with $0 and hopefully no deeper in debt.
UNDER A HYPOTHETICAL CONSUMPTION / NATIONAL SALES TAX PLAN:
For this exercise let’s say the national consumption / sales tax is 25%.
The CEO still needs $4.5 million to support his life style so he spends $4.5 million a year and pays $1,125,000 a year in tax. FAR, FAR less than the $11.5 million he was paying per year. And now he’s left with $24,375,000 at the end of the year. A difference of +$9,375,000 left in his pocket.
The poor working slob still spends every dime he makes just trying to get by. But now he will pay 25% on his $30 thousand or $7500. Now he’s only left with $22,500 to live on… $3000 LESS than he had before and probably deeper in debt.
So you’re right! The low wage earner will finally be paying his fair share of taxes and the 1% club will get the break they deserve.
I just love static economics.
Remove taxes on the wealthy and they will invest (assuming gov. stays out of the way) and you get more jobs. This will reduce the need for additional taxes "required" for social programs and give away programs. Of course this is very bad for politicians that get elected via people addicted to free government money "provided" by the rich. The rich are being forced to subsidize the general population and also provide businesses for the rest of us to have jobs, yet they are considered the "greedy".
You are also stereotyping the "wealthy" as a fixed group that never changes which is strictly untrue. There is much movement up and down the economic scale so you are punishing and restricting those that are trying to move up.
You are also forgetting that many "rich" people have education to pay for which many "poor" people do not. Why invest heavily in an education if you are going to face confiscatory taxes to support others? This is how a progressive tax structure discourages economic growth and education.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
A simplified rational tax system would really make the true costs of things much more apparent.
Indeed it would, but it's on the other hand. Since the tax code is so complex and no body understands it, it is very easy to say:"Look at those rich people with all of those loop holes!." We here it all the time in on the nightly propaganda and on this site.
Since the top 1% pay ~40% of the federal taxes, we know these tax loop holes amount to very little. And you would think that all these super rich people could afford better accountants to find all of these supposed loop holes, no? Since the bottom 50% pay about 3% of the income tax, it's apparent who has the better accountants....and I'm not talking about CPAs.
Having a simplified tax system would largely eliminate the evil boogeyman tax evaders and would cause more taxes on the lower wage earners. This is of course bad for politicians that depend upon class envy (since people would actually have to pay for tax increases which currently only burden the evil rich people) and wealth redistribution to get elected.
It’s just so unfair!!!
Let’s do a hypothetical example. We’ll look at two typical Americans. One is a fine upstanding corporate CEO making $30 million a year and the other a poor working slob making $30 thousand a year. We’ll look at the current tax plan and under a hypothetical consumption / federal sales tax system.
UNDER THE CURRENT PLAN:
The CEO may be paying a whopping 35% on that $30 million and that only leaves him $19.5 million to live on. Let’s say he spends $4.5 million a year to live on… You know pay the mortgage on the mansion, the car loan on the mayback, send the kids to Yale or Harvard, and maybe a few well deserved vacations to Hawaii and Europe. At the end of the year he’s left with $15 million to squirrel away for a rainy day or retirement.
The working slob may be paying an unfairly low 15% on his $30 thousand and that leaves him $25,500 to live on. He spends every dime he makes just trying to get by and if the kids plan on college, they are on their own. At the end of the year he’s left with $0 and hopefully no deeper in debt.
UNDER A HYPOTHETICAL CONSUMPTION / NATIONAL SALES TAX PLAN:
For this exercise let’s say the national consumption / sales tax is 25%.
The CEO still needs $4.5 million to support his life style so he spends $4.5 million a year and pays $1,125,000 a year in tax. FAR, FAR less than the $11.5 million he was paying per year. And now he’s left with $24,375,000 at the end of the year. A difference of +$9,375,000 left in his pocket.
The poor working slob still spends every dime he makes just trying to get by. But now he will pay 25% on his $30 thousand or $7500. Now he’s only left with $22,500 to live on… $3000 LESS than he had before and probably deeper in debt.
So you’re right! The low wage earner will finally be paying his fair share of taxes and the 1% club will get the break they deserve.
I just love static economics.
You are also stereotyping the "wealthy" as a fixed group that never changes which is strictly untrue. There is much movement up and down the economic scale so you are punishing and restricting those that are trying to move up.
You are also forgetting that many "rich" people have education to pay for which many "poor" people do not. Why invest heavily in an education if you are going to face confiscatory taxes to support others? This is how a progressive tax structure discourages economic growth and education.
Originally Posted By: moribundman
I here you hear and their!
Ok, you got me their.
I here you hear and their!
Ok, you got me their.
It is everyone's agreement that rich people SAVE MORE MONEY than the poor because they can afford to. So how would they INVEST and you get more jobs? Lower income spend more of their income as a percentage and that supports more jobs.
Think of it this way, rich people pay less taxes, then there will be less taxes, not more because you assume their saving will trickle down. The reduction in taxes responsibility is now on the shoulders of the not so rich, and pushes more people into the need of social programs because they pay for a higher percentage.
Just look at all the begging from charity right now. More people unemployed and need social services. We have been bailing out industries left and right, does that trickle down to more income for everyone? Does lower taxes and cut back on social services help these people? Getting them a job? No, these businesses are just hording the cash because they don't invest, because of risk. Trickle down never happens because, if the time is good business don't need lower taxes and it will reinvest, but if the time is bad, money from lower taxes will be hoard, not reinvest, due to risk.
So what if the wealthy and the un-wealthy change group, when you are in the group you pay more taxes, when you got out you pay less. It's that simple.
Rich people also get the benefit of education that the government directly or indirectly pay for. Even the private ones are some what benefited by the government's support in K-12 and researches. Rich doesn't pay for everything and receive nothing. Scholarship and cheap college loans are there because government is subsidizing them. Higher education result in more income, and these income are taxed to reinvest back into the higher education. Nothing wrong with that.
Except someone wants to be rich (or is rich), wants to enjoy the benefit of the tax spending (cheap education, income from government projects like construction, defense contracts, makes money from serving people on government payout, etc), and pay little to no taxes in return.
Think of it this way, rich people pay less taxes, then there will be less taxes, not more because you assume their saving will trickle down. The reduction in taxes responsibility is now on the shoulders of the not so rich, and pushes more people into the need of social programs because they pay for a higher percentage.
Just look at all the begging from charity right now. More people unemployed and need social services. We have been bailing out industries left and right, does that trickle down to more income for everyone? Does lower taxes and cut back on social services help these people? Getting them a job? No, these businesses are just hording the cash because they don't invest, because of risk. Trickle down never happens because, if the time is good business don't need lower taxes and it will reinvest, but if the time is bad, money from lower taxes will be hoard, not reinvest, due to risk.
So what if the wealthy and the un-wealthy change group, when you are in the group you pay more taxes, when you got out you pay less. It's that simple.
Rich people also get the benefit of education that the government directly or indirectly pay for. Even the private ones are some what benefited by the government's support in K-12 and researches. Rich doesn't pay for everything and receive nothing. Scholarship and cheap college loans are there because government is subsidizing them. Higher education result in more income, and these income are taxed to reinvest back into the higher education. Nothing wrong with that.
Except someone wants to be rich (or is rich), wants to enjoy the benefit of the tax spending (cheap education, income from government projects like construction, defense contracts, makes money from serving people on government payout, etc), and pay little to no taxes in return.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
