Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 04-14-2010, 05:35 PM   #141
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
jIMOh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Milford, OH
Posts: 2,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrabbler1 View Post
I disagree.

(1) My property is a studio apartment in a large co-op complex, a complex which consists of mostly childfree residents. The value of my apartment is based a lot on the value of other apartments in my complex and in nearby co-ops, places which are also mostly childfree.

(2) People who buy apartments in these co-ops have no desire to pay a premium for something (i.e. schools) they have no plans to use.

(3) I bought my apartment back in 1989. This was just before the real estate market tanked in the early 1990s. If I sold my place in the early 1990 I would have lost nearly 50% of what I paid. The schools were not going down the drain at any point. But things rebounded over the years, and not because of anything special in the schools (in fact we had some exam grading scandals in the late 1990s). The high level of the school taxes is a constant drag on the sales price here the same way high interest rates are a drag on home sales - it increases the carrying costs of owning a place. Nearly nobody in my complex gains from having good schools but we are all penalized by having high local school taxes. Declining school quality would have no effect on anyone in my complex trying to sell because the new buyer(s) will be similarly childfree, the same way I did not give a damn about the quality of the schools when I bought my apartment.

(4) I said it before, but paying a premium for something you can't use is not limited to just schools. Our co-op is located close to the local commuter train station, something valuable to me and many others who use it. Someone who moves here but doesn't use the train is paying a premium for something they can't use (or they live someplace away from the station). But with schools we can't as easily avoid paying a premium if we have no kids.

I don't suggest we childfree pay zero local school taxes but we should receive a no-kids property tax credit the same way income tax filers receive per-kids tax credits.
We are going to disagree

my single counter point would be this

if the people in the school district moved out and were not replaced (like houses foreclosed on) your property values would go down in the apartment complex.

the decrease may not be in proportion to anything.... but it would be tough for you to convince me if the schools went bad (as in inner city ghetto bad), that the surrounding property values within that district would not suffer.

I do agree it's possible your apartment values would not go up if school improved... but the counter point to that (to me) is you still live in the district. If you did not want the tax, you were not forced to live in the district (the way we are "forced" to get health care in 2014). You have freedom to live in an area which has less property tax by selling current unit.
__________________

__________________
Light travels faster than sound. That is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak. One person's stupidity is another person's job security.
jIMOh is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 04-14-2010, 06:04 PM   #142
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Leonidas's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Where the stars at night are big and bright
Posts: 2,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gone4Good View Post
I think in a lot of cases its the "something else" that matters. Economic issues are not the be-all, end-all. Many people choose political parties because of non-economic issues that are important to them . . . cultural, religious, etc.

I also seem to detect a phenomenon where people join a group for one reason (say religious) but then adopt the groups other views (economic) that are of secondary, or tertiary importance to them. I think that is one way you get people supporting economic policies that don't benefit them personally.
You do have a point, but you forgot to include people who belong to "groups" because of where they were born - or their ancestry. There are a lot of people in this country who learned from their parents, neighbors, etc., that a strong central government is not to be trusted too far. That a government that is so big and rich that it wants to "give" you things, is a government that is too big and rich and will one day want to take things away from you. And more often than not, I'm one of those people. Given a choice between somebody who says "vote for me I support limited government involvement in your life", and "vote for me and I'll make sure you get your fair share" - I'll vote for the first guy all day long. Sure, I know they're both lying, but why vote for the liar whose telling me lies that I wouldn't support if they were true?
__________________

__________________
There is no pleasure in having nothing to do; the fun is having lots to do and not doing it. - Andrew Jackson
Leonidas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2010, 06:31 PM   #143
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by jIMOh View Post
We are going to disagree

my single counter point would be this

if the people in the school district moved out and were not replaced (like houses foreclosed on) your property values would go down in the apartment complex.
No. When appraisers do their comparables for appraising purposes, they use similar residences. So, when I refinanced the mortgage on my place, it was compared to other studio apartments in the area, not to the more expensive houses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jIMOh View Post
the decrease may not be in proportion to anything.... but it would be tough for you to convince me if the schools went bad (as in inner city ghetto bad), that the surrounding property values within that district would not suffer.
We did have that test grading scandal in the late 1990s, not as bad as a ghetto but you are still using an extreme example just to try to make a point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jIMOh View Post
I do agree it's possible your apartment values would not go up if school improved... but the counter point to that (to me) is you still live in the district. If you did not want the tax, you were not forced to live in the district (the way we are "forced" to get health care in 2014). You have freedom to live in an area which has less property tax by selling current unit.
Ugh. The "love it or leave it" argument, the last stand for those who have nothing else to argue.

Let me tell you how this affects people. First, the elderly get taxed out of their homes because they can't afford the sky-high school taxes once their kids (if they had any) move out. This breaks up families, forcing them to relocate, often far away (from this area, Long Island, New York) from the friends and relatives they have lived near for decades. Second, the young people can't afford to move back here because of the sky-high school taxes, causing a "brain drain" and further breaking up families. They often have to move away, far away. Many of my relatives have moved far away because they can't afford to live here. This is also bad for the local economy because local businesses don't have access to hiring these young, college-educated people if they live elsewhere.

In the elderly case, they stayed and fought the system which taxed them excessively and unfairly. This resulted in the creation of the Enhanced STAR program which provided state school tax rebates for those homeowners over age 65 with low incomes. This way, they were not taxed out of their homes and could continue to live here.

However, this Enhanced STAR program does nothing for non-elderly, low-income childfree people, the ones who also pay school taxes but, like the elderly, are no burden on the local schools. Instead, we are told to pay up or get out, the same way the elderly were forced to do until the Enhanced STAR program came along for them. Why can't the Enhanced STAR program apply to non-elderly, childfree people with similarly low incomes?

And where can non-elderly (under age 55, at least) childfree people live so they can pay less (or zero, perhaps) in local school taxes without breaking apart families? I would love to have some low-enrollment school districts become a childfree zones in which all the schools would be shut down and replaced with taxpaying residential properties. The kids in the district would be bussed to neighboring districts until they graduate, and childed families would be prohibited from moving in. After 10 or 15 years, this would be a childfree, school-free, school-tax-free zone within the larger county.

Can I have the freedom to create such an area within my own county to live in?
__________________
scrabbler1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2010, 07:19 PM   #144
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
freebird5825's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Nowhere, 43N Latitude, NY
Posts: 9,017
Two extremes...but what we have in common is our school taxes are way too high and we derive no direct benefit.
scrabbler1 lives in one of the highest taxed areas of NYS, besides perhaps Westchester County or metropolitan NYC.
I live in a much lower taxed area, i.e. out in the country with a dairy farm right nearby, but still a lot to pay for a single gal. dh2b helps as best as he is able to, but that is not the point. I should be able to afford this myself.
I can right now, but with NY in financial trouble and cutting education funding left and right, I know what is coming my way. Moving out of my home is not an option I think is "fair" for any reason.
The good news is I can afford it because I anticipated this situation and planned for it.
Seniors trying to live on lower end fixed incomes will not be able to afford the inevitable increases.
__________________
"All our dreams can come true, if we have the courage to pursue them." - Walt Disney
freebird5825 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2010, 09:34 PM   #145
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,278
Quote:
Originally Posted by youbet View Post
So, what aspects of FIT that are unique to kids bother you? (Don't include personal exemptions as those are not unique to kids but rather apply to any dependent.)

I'm just not aware of these HUGE tax breaks for kids people keep whining about. Yes, low income parents probably have significantly lower taxes, as a percentage - trivial in absolute dollars, due to the child care credit if they use it. But for a middle class couple, say a couple engineers both working, the delta in taxes due to kid specific tax reductions seems minimal.

I'm guesing you're confusing the lower rate for MFJ vs single and the use of personal exemptions with savings from kids. Neither of those are kid specific.
I was planning to answer this when I got back today, I see it has taken on a life of it's own....

I had to go back through this thread, and now I see the details behind what I posted were in another thread (though I think they got mentioned here). In that thread, ( here and here ) I was specific that the credits I received were based on an ~ $84,000 AGI. You seem to be applying this comment to a couple with a much higher AGI, but I didn't comment on that, I commented on people who fit my profile.

And after all I've read, I still think that someone with~ $84,000 AGI should be on the hook for more than $24 in FIT. And I'd say that whether it was the kids getting the edu credit, or the adults. People can disagree with that, but it is how I feel.

I went back to check, yes, $4500 in credits. I'd say (even though I didn't) that $4,524 is HUGE compared to $24.

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2010, 09:21 AM   #146
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
jIMOh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Milford, OH
Posts: 2,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrabbler1 View Post
No. When appraisers do their comparables for appraising purposes, they use similar residences. So, when I refinanced the mortgage on my place, it was compared to other studio apartments in the area, not to the more expensive houses.

Not talking appraisal, talking selling the unit

I agree an appraisal used similar residences (similar style house and location)
however what a buyer pays for it will be proportional to quality of community, and if the school system went downhill, it will affect all properties in community, and if members of community left (even other style residences), your price would be affected.

Two good examples (one real, one fictional)

When GM left Flint MI, did not matter what type of residence existed, they all went downhill as far as price goes. I make similar analagy to good school district- if something in district (high foreclosures?) forced people to move out and lower tax base, all properties in that district will see a lower cost.

If Disney had to pull out of Orlando Florida, it would have a negative impact on real estate prices for everyone.

My real point is this- in most towns in tiny town USA, there is no GM or Disney which exist keeping people in the area. Its usually a combination of the schools, safety (police, fire, hospitals) and other minor conveniences (like grocery stores, bars and public transportation).

If any of those things pull out (for example the bus stop closes, the police department lays people off or the schools decrease in quality), the real estate values of that area drop- regardless of who paid how much property taxes or who used the schools, the local economics affects housing prices of everyone.

It is not proportional though

Meaning just because the value of my house dropped 25% does not mean the condo 2 miles away dropped 25%. Its possible one holds value better than other, but the prices of all will drop some degree if community goes to crapper.

edit to add-
I am reasonably familiar with long Island locations- having consulted there about 5-10 times over a 8 year span. My sister lives on Long Island and my brother went to school at south hampton (when it existed).

I understand the "high" taxes of the area, and my opinion is that there is something else entering into equation other than just school taxes- like a corrupt NYS political and budget system which misuses funds thru the whole state.

I agree your taxes on LI are sky high (my house in Ohio would probably sell for 3X what I paid for it on Long Island where my sister lives). And I know I could not afford taxes on my Ohio house if I lived in NYS either (I am from Rochester, but know things out your way are even worse).

I probably don't comprehend the nature of the problem until I live it, but its not up to the tax code to keep families together or allow them to live close to one another. That is social engineering at its worst IMO.
__________________
Light travels faster than sound. That is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak. One person's stupidity is another person's job security.
jIMOh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2010, 10:02 AM   #147
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
youbet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
I went back to check, yes, $4500 in credits. I'd say (even though I didn't) that $4,524 is HUGE compared to $24.
Was ALL of that $4500 related to kiddie-exclusive credits? Or was some of it available to no-kiddies folks as well, such as the ecucation credit?

My point is, and remains, that the blanket statement that ALL families with kids get HUGE tax credits available only to families with kids is a bit broad. In fact, many of the credits are available to no-kiddie folks and many phase out as incomes rise into middle-middle class.

As far as your $24 in FIT for a $84k AGI, that does seem low. But I guess I'd need to take each case like that individually. It's a real stretch to extrapolate your situation to say that the only reason folks with mid-level AGI's pay close to zero tax is because they have HUGE kiddie-exclusive tax credits and deductions. Was it only because of kid-exclusive credits? What were the other deductions and credits? Any of the dreaded loopholes utilized? There might be a number of things that need fixin' !

I'd be in favor of some sort of flat tax, FAIR tax or whatever ERD50. That would work out well for us here as far as I can tell. Assuming a 15% rate, you would have paid $12.6k, a much more reasonable number than $24! We'd both be happy then.
__________________
youbet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2010, 10:23 AM   #148
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,278
Quote:
Originally Posted by youbet View Post
Was ALL of that $4500 related to kiddie-exclusive credits? Or was some of it available to no-kiddies folks as well, such as the ecucation credit?
Depends on your perspective, I guess. I was reporting on my personal experience, so for me it was kiddie edu credits. To be honest, I don't recall if there were any age restrictions to those (I don't think so though), and taxes are complex and time consuming enough just to figure out what I do qualify for, so I didn't take the time in this case to find out the clauses on who else would qualify.

Quote:
My point is, and remains, that the blanket statement that ALL families with kids get HUGE tax credits available only to families with kids is a bit broad. In fact, many of the credits are available to no-kiddie folks and many phase out as incomes rise into middle-middle class.
I'm in total agreement. I guess this is where I'm a bit confused. I don't know if you are attributing that broad-blanket to me, or speaking about some other groups of people? There's a lot of posting and cross-posting going on, so it does get confusing to remember who said what - at least it is for me!


Quote:
As far as your $24 in FIT for a $84k AGI, that does seem low. But I guess I'd need to take each case like that individually. Was it only because of kid-exclusive credits? What were the other deductions and credits? Any of the dreaded loopholes utilized? There might be a number of things that need fixin' !
$3,500 in edu credits across two kids (3 semesters only) plus $1,000 Child Tax Credit. No fancy loopholes, and I'm not including their exemptions, or any portion of contributions to Schedule A deductions or anything like that.



Quote:
I'd be in favor of some sort of flat tax, FAIR tax or whatever ERD50. That would work out well for us here as far as I can tell. Assuming a 15% rate, you would have paid $12.6k, a much more reasonable number than $24! We'd both be happy then.
In some ways, what I'm asking for (in concept, not the same way they implemented it), is an AMT that goes much lower. I do think that $24 on $84K is too low, and there should be a floor on these credits. But since I'm a fan of simplification, I say change the credit system rather than put another layer of 'fixes' on top of it.

Oh well, time to gas up the mower! Spring has hit Northern IL!

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2010, 11:03 AM   #149
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
IndependentlyPoor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Austin
Posts: 1,142
This isn't about rug-rats, but...

From Top 400 Taxpayers | The Big Picture

The IRS puts out an interesting tax document each year, looking at the returns of the nations wealthiest 400 people. The most recent year of complete data is 2007, when 143 million individuals filed tax returns.
Some of the data is quite astonishing:
• The top 400 U.S. individual taxpayers got 1.59% of the nation’s household income in 2007 — 3X the p% they got in the 1990s.
• The top 400 paid 2.05% of all individual income taxes in 2007.
• Only 220 of the top 400 were in the top marginal tax bracket.
• Average tax rate of the 400 = 16.6% — the lowest since the IRS began tracking the 400 in 1992.
• Minimum annual income to make the top 400 = $138.8 million.
• Top 400 reported $137.9 billion in income; they paid $22.9 billion in federal income taxes.
• 81.3% of income was from capital gains, dividends or interest. Salaries and wages? Just 6.5%.
• The top 400 list changes from year to year: 1992-2007, it contained 3,472 different taxpayers (out of a maximum 6400).
And they all would still fit in Lady Astor's ballroom.
__________________
Start by admitting
from cradle to tomb
it isn't that long a stay.
IndependentlyPoor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2010, 12:09 PM   #150
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
dex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 5,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by IndependentlyPoor View Post
• The top 400 U.S. individual taxpayers got 1.59% of the nation’s household income in 2007
• The top 400 paid 2.05% of all individual income taxes in 2007.


Are they paying too much in taxes?
__________________
Sometimes death is not as tragic as not knowing how to live. This man knew how to live--and how to make others glad they were living. - Jack Benny at Nat King Cole's funeral
dex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2010, 12:13 PM   #151
Moderator
ziggy29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 15,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by independentlypoor View Post
• only 220 of the top 400 were in the top marginal tax bracket.

• minimum annual income to make the top 400 = $138.8 million
OK, this also shows the tax system is dysfunctional.

IMO, exactly 100% of taxpayers with incomes of $138 million or more should be in the top marginal bracket -- not 55%. Presumably most of the other 45% are paying the AMT, but still....
__________________
"Hey, for every ten dollars, that's another hour that I have to be in the work place. That's an hour of my life. And my life is a very finite thing. I have only 'x' number of hours left before I'm dead. So how do I want to use these hours of my life? Do I want to use them just spending it on more crap and more stuff, or do I want to start getting a handle on it and using my life more intelligently?" -- Joe Dominguez (1938 - 1997)

RIP to Reemy, my avatar dog (2003 - 9/16/2017)
ziggy29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2010, 01:02 PM   #152
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
youbet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
Depends on your perspective, I guess. I was reporting on my personal experience, so for me it was kiddie edu credits.
I don't label tax credits or deductions that are available to anyone and everyone (before income phase-outs) as tax credits or deductions for families with kids. So I wouldn't count that part of your fortunate tax situation as due to kiddie credits, just due to the educational credits.

BTW, I read (sorry can't find it now) that the recession has caused a few out of work adults to use the educ tax credits to help getting some class work in that they think will help them find a job.
Quote:

I'm in total agreement. I guess this is where I'm a bit confused. I don't know if you are attributing that broad-blanket to me, or speaking about some other groups of people?
I interpreted some posts, made by others, as broad brush classifying all families with kids as getting HUGE kiddie exclusive tax credits and deductions. I just thought that was a tad too broad.
Quote:



$3,500 in edu credits across two kids (3 semesters only) plus $1,000 Child Tax Credit. No fancy loopholes, and I'm not including their exemptions, or any portion of contributions to Schedule A deductions or anything like that.
The way I'd look at it is that you got $1k in tax savings due to kiddie-exclusive tax credits. A couple with more income than you, say a dept manager at a retail store and a engineer making a combined $120k, would have gotten no break at all since their income would have phased the credit out.

Whether that is appropriate taxation or not is strictly judgmental and open to opinion and interpretation. I just read a few posts that I thought were implying that all families with kids get huge tax breaks. And that's not true.

We all personalize this stuff. My son and DIL with three rugrats, one with cerebral palsy, have a lot of kiddie related expenses and only had their taxes reduced by a few hundred bux due to what was left of the child care credit after phase out. When I read folks saying that there were huge kiddlie-exclusive tax breaks out there, I was optimistic that they must have overlooked something and I could save them a few bux. But, not so. Sigh.........

So the bottom line seems to be that for lower income folks, there are some kiddie-exclusive tax breaks that can save them a big percentage of their taxes, even if not huge in absolute dollars. But as you get into middle-middle class, and when you account for the fact that many of the credits folks are referring to apply to any dependent, not just minor children, it's not such a big deal.

As mentioned before, I'd be happy to eliminate it all and just have a flat tax. At 15%, you'd have paid much, much more and I would have paid about the same. Sounds good to me!

Yep, fantastic weather here in Chicagoland. Can't decide whether to cut grass, get out the kayaks or prep the camper for an overnighter........
__________________
youbet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2010, 01:26 PM   #153
Full time employment: Posting here.
MuirWannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 670
Quote:
Originally Posted by dex View Post
Are they paying too much in taxes?
[/INDENT]
Yes. We are all paying too much in federal income taxes. Except the 47% who pay nothing.
__________________
“Of all the paths you take in life, make sure a few of them are dirt.” John Muir
MuirWannabe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2010, 01:37 PM   #154
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
youbet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by IndependentlyPoor View Post
This isn't about rug-rats, but...

From Top 400 Taxpayers | The Big Picture

The IRS puts out an interesting tax document each year, looking at the returns of the nations wealthiest 400 people. The most recent year of complete data is 2007, when 143 million individuals filed tax returns.
Some of the data is quite astonishing:
• The top 400 U.S. individual taxpayers got 1.59% of the nation’s household income in 2007 — 3X the p% they got in the 1990s.
• The top 400 paid 2.05% of all individual income taxes in 2007.
• Only 220 of the top 400 were in the top marginal tax bracket.
• Average tax rate of the 400 = 16.6% — the lowest since the IRS began tracking the 400 in 1992.
• Minimum annual income to make the top 400 = $138.8 million.
• Top 400 reported $137.9 billion in income; they paid $22.9 billion in federal income taxes.
• 81.3% of income was from capital gains, dividends or interest. Salaries and wages? Just 6.5%.
• The top 400 list changes from year to year: 1992-2007, it contained 3,472 different taxpayers (out of a maximum 6400).
And they all would still fit in Lady Astor's ballroom.
Very interesting.......

I wonder if these folks pay other income taxes indirectly. Say they own a corporation or two. Might the corporations be paying taxes that aren't counted in these numbers?

Do Bill Gates or Warren Buffet report all the income generated by their vast wealth? Or might there be trusts, corporations, etc., reporting income and paying taxes?
__________________
youbet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2010, 05:58 PM   #155
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,555
My DD and her DH received a large tax refund. They have 1 child who is my only grandchild. They bought their first house last year. They are both taking college courses part-time. Uncle Sam gave them back more money than my DS-in-Law paid in. Uncle Sam also gave him 3 shots for free also. I believe they were typhoid, anthrax and smallpox. Uncle Sam is also giving him an all expense paid trip to Afghanistan this year.

All of the above is to say that just because they are "low income", they are not figuring out how many hours they can work and still not pay income tax. At this time, they are only planning on having the 1 child. (I hope they change their minds, but that is their decision.) They are not trying to scam the government. My DS-in-law is in the Navy and works Monday thru Friday and anytime else they tell him. He worked this past Sunday from 7:00AM-7:00PM. He did not vote for Obama and he knew what could happen when he enlisted in the Navy. He is not complaining. They are young and starting out. I can see him and my DD paying FIT for many years in the future. I get tired of seeing people living in mansions that get tax deductions for their mortgage interest. There should be a cap on that IMO, if there is not. I hear about people going on business trips to exotic places and know that companies get to claim these as business expenses. People are given cruises, football tickets, etc by companies and again these are written off as business expenses. Restaurant food that is again written off as business expenses and for the most expensive places to eat. Places that the average person would never to be able to afford to eat without breaking the bank. These are some of the places that I would like to see tax changes. I do not mind seeing the so-called "kiddie tax breaks". My two children are grown, so I do not receive them myself. We are still paying for our DD's college, but don't receive a tax break, since she is married and not our dependent.
__________________
Dreamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2010, 07:30 PM   #156
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
dex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 5,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuirWannabe View Post
Yes. We are all paying too much in federal income taxes. Except the 47% who pay nothing.
"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."

Benjamin Franklin Quotes/Quotations
__________________
Sometimes death is not as tragic as not knowing how to live. This man knew how to live--and how to make others glad they were living. - Jack Benny at Nat King Cole's funeral
dex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2010, 06:53 PM   #157
Moderator Emeritus
Martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: minnesota
Posts: 13,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by dex View Post
"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."

Benjamin Franklin Quotes/Quotations
They can't. I have come to believe that this is a nation of corporations. We get a health reform bill for insurance companies and maybe something for some of us in four or five years (and I can hardly believe we got that much). Banks and Wallstreet get bailouts. Goldman Sachs gets offended when the feds dare call them on a scam. U.S. corporations get to close their factories, move to Mexico to make a product and then move to China. Our citizens get the huge risk of losing their jobs, with unemployment well into the double digits. Our citizens get dead end jobs, part time jobs, and loss of jobs to foreign competition. They get age discrimination. They get loss of benefits from their small employers. They lose what they thought was equity in their homes. And if they can't find a job they often feel it is their own failure. And they get to worry about whether there will be social security for them when they are old and can't work any more. And if there is a safety net some people call that voting benefits for themselves and thus somehow suspect.

The one thing I agree with the "teaparty" on is that they have the right to be pissed off. Our citizens have been screwed.



__________________
.


No more lawyer stuff, no more political stuff, so no more CYA

Martha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2010, 09:12 PM   #158
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
They are not trying to scam the government.
I believe you. When I paid $24 in FIT in 2008 I wasn't trying trying (and I didn't) scam anyone either. I just filled out the tax forms to the best of my ability. But I still don't think it is the right way to finance the needs of a nation.


Quote:
I get tired of seeing people living in mansions that get tax deductions for their mortgage interest. There should be a cap on that IMO, if there is not.
That is what the AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax) is supposed to do. I don't know if it is effective or not (it wasn't for me in 2008), but that is the intent. I have had my deductions/credits limited in high income years, even w/o AMT, so I suspect it does work.

Quote:
I hear about people going on business trips to exotic places and know that companies get to claim these as business expenses. People are given cruises, football tickets, etc by companies and again these are written off as business expenses. Restaurant food that is again written off as business expenses and for the most expensive places to eat. Places that the average person would never to be able to afford to eat without breaking the bank. These are some of the places that I would like to see tax changes.
I agree. Another thing that a National Sales Tax would fix. Tax based on the propensity to spend, period.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Martha View Post
They can't. I have come to believe that this is a nation of corporations.
I agree that big Corporations have a lot of power, but they don't get a vote. They can hire lobbyists and finance campaigns. But so do Unions.


Quote:
U.S. corporations get to close their factories, move to Mexico to make a product and then move to China. Our citizens get the huge risk of losing their jobs, with unemployment well into the double digits. Our citizens get dead end jobs, part time jobs, and loss of jobs to foreign competition. They get age discrimination. They get loss of benefits from their small employers.
True. You might view it differently if you were on the receiving end of the job in China, Mexico, etc. Then you might say 'whew, finally I am able to work a 12 hour day, and get enough money to feed my family, while those rich Americans complained about this job paying 5x what I get, got money back from the Feds, and felt abused when their cable went dead for an hour.'


Quote:
They lose what they thought was equity in their homes.
Maybe they bought at a market peak with little/nothing down? That's what happens when you use leverage. It isn't just the big old nasty banks using leverage. The FDIC insures my savings account to a certain amount (through the funds it collects). I didn't know our home values came with a guarantee. Is there an HVIC (Home Value Insurance Corporation)? I need to apply for some relief if there is, how about an IRAIC, mine is hurting also. I thought that equity in my investment was never supposed to drop, really.

Conversely, lots of middle-class and lower middle-class people bought into the home market just before it took off. I don't recall any praise for the banks for helping these people leverage themselves into an extremely profitable situation. That was just business. But when it turns on 'em, well, let's find someone to blame.


Quote:
And if there is a safety net some people call that voting benefits for themselves and thus somehow suspect.
And if corporations w/o a vote lobby in their own self-interest, that is called out as suspect. I guess that is different.


Quote:
The one thing I agree with the "teaparty" on is that they have the right to be pissed off. Our citizens have been screwed.
Yep, I'd really have to say that anyone in my position in 2008, with $84,000 AGI was really getting screwed with a $24 FIT tax bill.

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2010, 09:42 AM   #159
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
harley's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Following the nice weather
Posts: 6,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
They are not trying to scam the government.
As ERD said, those of us who pay little in FIT aren't trying to scam the government, we're just following the rules as written by said government.

Quote:
I get tired of seeing people living in mansions that get tax deductions for their mortgage interest. There should be a cap on that IMO, if there is not.
There is actually a 1 million dollar cap on mortgage interest deductions. See, they're listening!

Quote:
I hear about people going on business trips to exotic places and know that companies get to claim these as business expenses. People are given cruises, football tickets, etc by companies and again these are written off as business expenses. Restaurant food that is again written off as business expenses and for the most expensive places to eat. Places that the average person would never to be able to afford to eat without breaking the bank. These are some of the places that I would like to see tax changes.
I don't really disagree with you about some of these tax deductions, but...

Quote:
I do not mind seeing the so-called "kiddie tax breaks".
I don't see how it would be fair to allow the tax deductions you (or whomever) approve of, while disallowing the ones you don't get to claim.

Dump them all, and charge a flat tax, or something. It still wouldn't be fair, but maybe fairer. And certainly simpler.
__________________
"Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement." - Will Rogers, or maybe Sam Clemens
DW and I - FIREd at 50 (7/06), living off assets
harley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2010, 09:47 AM   #160
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Leonidas's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Where the stars at night are big and bright
Posts: 2,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by harley View Post
I don't see how it would be fair to allow the tax deductions you (or whomever) approve of, while disallowing the ones you don't get to claim.

Dump them all, and charge a flat tax, or something. It still wouldn't be fair, but maybe fairer. And certainly simpler.
My newest favorite Andrew Jackson quote:
Quote:
The wisdom of man never yet contrived a system of taxation that would operate with perfect equality.
__________________

__________________
There is no pleasure in having nothing to do; the fun is having lots to do and not doing it. - Andrew Jackson
Leonidas is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Military retirees in Ohio--Now No Taxes on Retirement Pay samclem FIRE and Money 33 11-12-2010 12:29 AM
We could support ourselves from the taxes we pay chinaco FIRE and Money 18 06-13-2007 10:03 PM
Didn't pay her taxes skipper Other topics 47 03-12-2007 11:28 AM
How much in taxes will I pay? buzz FIRE and Money 11 07-04-2006 10:11 AM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:35 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.