Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If Republicans criticized Democrats for ignoring Biblical principles, we'd be hearing nothing but "Church and State, Church and State"
Can someone explain to me how closing loopholes is raising taxes? A loophole by definition is a technicality to avoid the intent of the law. If the rate that was agreed upon is 35%, and you're paying 17%, removing the loophole so you pay the 35% you're supposed to isn't a tax raise, it's the intended rate. I mean, I don't see anyone calling this a price hike.
It's because they are not talking about real loopholes. When they say they want to close the loopholes, they mean they want to eliminate deductions. That increases taxes. When the medical expense deduction was all but eliminated, most of us experienced a tax increase. When the interest rate deduction was eliminated except for mortgage interest, most of us experienced an increase in taxes.Can someone explain to me how closing loopholes is raising taxes? A loophole by definition is a technicality to avoid the intent of the law. If the rate that was agreed upon is 35%, and you're paying 17%, removing the loophole so you pay the 35% you're supposed to isn't a tax raise, it's the intended rate. I mean, I don't see anyone calling this a price hike.
Case in point. You're talking about deductions which are not loopholes. Democrats started calling them loopholes because it sounds more sinister than a deductionNo, there are countless loopholes that are specific and deliberate in the tax code.
If you whip out your latest paystub and look at the bottom line and it is smaller and the amount of tax that was taken out is larger then that larger number is raise in the amount of taxes taken from you.
A retail company making an advertising mistake does not relate to this topic.
FYI: I'm for a totally flat tax and ZERO exemptions (including for churches and non profits).
I'm not sure why churches should pay income tax. the money they have is basically pooled money that has already been taxed. If you had a fellow employee who had a sick child and you took a collection to give to the employee for medical expenses, would you want to include that as income for tax purposes for the person who actually took the collection?No, there are countless loopholes that are specific and deliberate in the tax code.
If you whip out your latest paystub and look at the bottom line and it is smaller and the amount of tax that was taken out is larger then that larger number is raise in the amount of taxes taken from you.
A retail company making an advertising mistake does not relate to this topic.
FYI: I'm for a totally flat tax and ZERO exemptions (including for churches and non profits).
Case in point. You're talking about deductions which are not loopholes. Democrats started calling them loopholes because it sounds more sinister than a deduction
It's because they are not talking about real loopholes. When they say they want to close the loopholes, they mean they want to eliminate deductions. That increases taxes. When the medical expense deduction was all but eliminated, most of us experienced a tax increase. When the interest rate deduction was eliminated except for mortgage interest, most of us experienced an increase in taxes.
Can you name some?Why should choice industries and individuals get deductions that other industries don't? Also, I'm pretty sure a number of them are unintended loopholes. I don't think the laws were written with the intent that Warren Buffet should pay less as a percentage than his secretary.
Deductions encourage business. As Reagan said, if you want less of something, tax t, if you want more of something, subsidize it. So do you want more of business, or less? Obama's plan seems to indicate he wants less business and thus we have unemployment in excess of 9%And what happened to that "everyone needs to sacrifice" line? Letting deductions that only you get go seems like a perfectly reasonable sacrifice if you're expecting other people to give up things that only apply to them. As far as I can tell those at the top are not taking on any additional sacrifices despite our current troubles.
Obama and his family certainly don't seem to be eating peas and sharing the sacrificeWhy can't Washington share in the sacrifice? Why not just reduce spending? How about a budget freeze say at 2006 levels (well back behind these trillions of stimulus) and then do an across the board 10% budget cut?
Look at all the Americans that are unemployed, have had pay cuts, increases in benefit costs, reduced hours and such... we have to live with that, we must adapt our lifestyles and budgets for that... why can't Washington do the same to the budget?
Can you name some?
Deductions encourage business. As Reagan said, if you want less of something, tax t, if you want more of something, subsidize it. So do you want more of business, or less? Obama's plan seems to indicate he wants less business and thus we have unemployment in excess of 9%
Why can't Washington share in the sacrifice? Why not just reduce spending? How about a budget freeze say at 2006 levels (well back behind these trillions of stimulus) and then do an across the board 10% budget cut?
Look at all the Americans that are unemployed, have had pay cuts, increases in benefit costs, reduced hours and such... we have to live with that, we must adapt our lifestyles and budgets for that... why can't Washington do the same to the budget?
100% agree'dWashington is sharing the sacrafice. Obama is currently offering 4:1 cuts to loop hole reductions. You're saying that $4 cut for every $1 in closed loophole isn't a fair enough sacrifice for cutting, and the GOP wants $4 cut for $0 in closed loopholes? What exactly are those at the top sacrificing to help with the problems they also helped create?
Mr. President, I rise today to talk about America's debt problem.
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies.
...
I'm not particularly familiar with the Koch brothers tax returns, but first you said it was choice businesses that got the breaks, now you're indicating that it's the small business getting the breaks. Which is it?Like how the Koch brothers, whose business brings in billions, file as a "small business" and pay taxes as such.
You should have listened to Steve Wynn explain. Businesses do not know what to expect from this administration. When he moved his headquarters to China, he said it was because with the current administration in Washington, China is more business friendlyThat hasn't come true in any sense of the word. They're not creating jobs with the deductions, so why should they keep them when everyone else is asked to sacrafice? If you expect students to give up scholarships, teachers and firemen to give up pensions, and future generations to take hits to SS and medicare, it seems reasonable that those at the top are asked to close a few loopholes on their personal income that only they get.
Cuts only is what I'm saying, and the "cuts" are a tiny drop in the bucket spread over a decade or more.
Washington politics as usual. The problem is that Washington is spending astronomically more money than they have (levels never seen before), not that tax revenues are astronomically down.
I'm not particularly familiar with the Koch brothers tax returns, but first you said it was choice businesses that got the breaks, now you're indicating that it's the small business getting the breaks.
Which is it?
You should have listened to Steve Wynn explain. Businesses do not know what to expect from this administration. When he moved his headquarters to China, he said it was because with the current administration in Washington, China is more business friendly
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?