A practical application of socialist ideas (Read 1168 times)


A Dance with Monkeys

    I dislike the loopholes that allow for folks who make an income not pay taxes.

     

    Guilty.

     

    In 2010, a federally declared disaster destroyed my home. My wife and I are hardworking, but the damage to the house was more than our joint income in a given average year. Insurance weaseled out of paying for the disaster, despite numerous efforts to get them to reconsider, including threats of lawsuit.  According to the current US tax code, one can deduct the value of damage from a federally declared disaster. So we did, and effectively did not pay 2009 taxes. At all. Our finances have been somewhat precarious since the disaster, and the tax loophole contributed to our being able to avoid foreclosure and bankruptcy.

     

    Should this loophole be closed?


    A Dance with Monkeys

      That takes away any benefit to charity

       

      Would this limit people's generosity to charities?


      No Talent Drips

        I say keep the loophole...but then this:

         

        Another Option

         

        Short and sweet...the only other tax I'd encourage is the sales (consumption) tax. Raise the sweet bejeesus out of both. And get rid of the rest.

         

        You should go get the clap just so you can give it to her. --beef

          Guilty.

           

          In 2010, a federally declared disaster destroyed my home. My wife and I are hardworking, but the damage to the house was more than our joint income in a given average year. Insurance weaseled out of paying for the disaster, despite numerous efforts to get them to reconsider, including threats of lawsuit.  According to the current US tax code, one can deduct the value of damage from a federally declared disaster. So we did, and effectively did not pay 2009 taxes. At all. Our finances have been somewhat precarious since the disaster, and the tax loophole contributed to our being able to avoid foreclosure and bankruptcy.

           

          Should this loophole be closed?

           

          You suffered tangible losses that totaled more than your income, meaning you had negative income for the year.  That's not a loophole, it's math.

          Runners run.


          Fat butt on couch

            Guilty.

             

            In 2010, a federally declared disaster destroyed my home. My wife and I are hardworking, but the damage to the house was more than our joint income in a given average year. Insurance weaseled out of paying for the disaster, despite numerous efforts to get them to reconsider, including threats of lawsuit.  According to the current US tax code, one can deduct the value of damage from a federally declared disaster. So we did, and effectively did not pay 2009 taxes. At all. Our finances have been somewhat precarious since the disaster, and the tax loophole contributed to our being able to avoid foreclosure and bankruptcy.

             

            Should this loophole be closed?

             

            A rather extreme example (I'll give you a pass on your 2009 taxes Trent).  Most people who do not pay income taxes are not in such a position...some of them even get refunds despite not paying in anything.

             

            I think everyone should pay something.  It's amazing what even a very token amount can do to make someone feel like they have some skin in the game.  My wife used to treat a dozen "frequent flyers" a night in the ER who were there for no other reason than to fake symptoms to get painkillers....paid for by Medicaid.  Had they needed to pay the cost of a pack of cigarettes to walk in the door, their behavior likely would have been very different.

             

            A large share of the people in this country have been exposed to the cost of their healthcare for the first time in their lives in recent years...myself included.  This is a good thing...it promotes efficiency and de-incentivizes abuse of the system with unneeded visits and services.  It changes behavior...it has changed my behavior, my wife sees it change the behavior of her patients, and it reduces the burden on the system.  This year...two years after we had to shoulder greater responsibility for the cost of our program at work...they did not increase premiums.  The reason we were given for this was that we had reduced the expenses to the plan enough that an increase was not needed.  It appears to me that people are being more conscious about what they spend when they have skin in the game.

             

            I don't think anyone with an income should get ZERO as a tax bill.  Even if the minimum bill is a very modest amount.  Certainly, people who owe nothing should not be getting "refunds".

             

            MTA:  I'm not against raising taxes...I'm willing to pay more.  However, I AM strongly against raising taxes to maintain the current system of deficit spending and federal debt expansion.  The longer we go before we address these issues, the more extreme the steps necessary (tax increases and spending cuts) necessary to rescue ourselves.  If we raise taxes on "the rich" now to the max of what "is fair" and simply continue to throw that money into the black hole without fixing the programs that are causing the massive spending increases, all we have done is further removed a tool that we may use to address the problem.  Then a bit in the future, if the gov't ever finds the spine to actually address the issue, they will not have room to increase taxes further...we'll have already wasted that resource.  So I agree with the Dems in one respect....some of the excuses the Reps have made for not increasing taxes on wealthier Americans are downright silly....but in another respect I back the Reps because I am fully against increasing taxes for the reasons the Dems want to use the money, even though I disagree with the reasons the Reps are using.

            "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

             

              A rather extreme example (I'll give you a pass on your 2009 taxes Trent).  Most people who do not pay income taxes are not in such a position...some of them even get refunds despite not paying in anything.

               

              I think everyone should pay something.  It's amazing what even a very token amount can do to make someone feel like they have some skin in the game.  My wife used to treat a dozen "frequent flyers" a night in the ER who were there for no other reason than to fake symptoms to get painkillers....paid for by Medicaid.  Had they needed to pay the cost of a pack of cigarettes to walk in the door, their behavior likely would have been very different.

               

              A large share of the people in this country have been exposed to the cost of their healthcare for the first time in their lives in recent years...myself included.  This is a good thing...it promotes efficiency and de-incentivizes abuse of the system with unneeded visits and services.  It changes behavior...it has changed my behavior, my wife sees it change the behavior of her patients, and it reduces the burden on the system.  This year...two years after we had to shoulder greater responsibility for the cost of our program at work...they did not increase premiums.  The reason we were given for this was that we had reduced the expenses to the plan enough that an increase was not needed.  It appears to me that people are being more conscious about what they spend when they have skin in the game.

               

              I don't think anyone with an income should get ZERO as a tax bill.  Even if the minimum bill is a very modest amount.  Certainly, people who owe nothing should not be getting "refunds".

               

              MTA:  I'm not against raising taxes...I'm willing to pay more.  However, I AM strongly against raising taxes to maintain the current system of deficit spending and federal debt expansion.  The longer we go before we address these issues, the more extreme the steps necessary (tax increases and spending cuts) necessary to rescue ourselves.  If we raise taxes on "the rich" now to the max of what "is fair" and simply continue to throw that money into the black hole without fixing the programs that are causing the massive spending increases, all we have done is further removed a tool that we may use to address the problem.  Then a bit in the future, if the gov't ever finds the spine to actually address the issue, they will not have room to increase taxes further...we'll have already wasted that resource.  So I agree with the Dems in one respect....some of the excuses the Reps have made for not increasing taxes on wealthier Americans are downright silly....but in another respect I back the Reps because I am fully against increasing taxes for the reasons the Dems want to use the money, even though I disagree with the reasons the Reps are using.

               

              What the hell are you babbling about?

              Runners run.


              Fast is better than long

                Guilty.

                 

                In 2010, a federally declared disaster destroyed my home. My wife and I are hardworking, but the damage to the house was more than our joint income in a given average year. Insurance weaseled out of paying for the disaster, despite numerous efforts to get them to reconsider, including threats of lawsuit.  According to the current US tax code, one can deduct the value of damage from a federally declared disaster. So we did, and effectively did not pay 2009 taxes. At all. Our finances have been somewhat precarious since the disaster, and the tax loophole contributed to our being able to avoid foreclosure and bankruptcy.

                 

                Should this loophole be closed?

                 

                I think this is an edgecase.

                 

                You are not going to continue the zero tax bill on an annual basis. You needed a helping hand so that you could wright the ship. Seems like this is a good example of a hand up vs. a hand out.

                 

                I like DB's idea, but I bet you could cap it at 20% and still net more tax dollars assuming we close the continual loop holes.

                2014 Goals: 2500 miles / sub 2 800m / 4:30 mile / sub 16:30 5K


                Give a man a fire and he'll be warm the rest of the night;
                Set a man afire and he'll be warm the rest of his life.

                What in the Jehu?

                  You suffered tangible losses that totaled more than your income, meaning you had negative income for the year.  That's not a loophole, it's math.

                  He never sold the property, so his loss was unrealized.

                   

                  Since the thread is nominally about socialism and the Big Bad Government ... The insurance company maximizes its profit and share value by taking in as much as possible in premium income and paying out as little as possible in claims.  If they get too aggressive with premiums or claims rejections, they won't optimize net income.  And if you think about it, the government hand-out didn't really go to Trent -- it went to the insurance company.  Isn't Trent's situation really just a good example of unfettered capitalism at work?

                   

                  (And FWIW, I side against the insurance company and their chickenshit rejection.  I"d have no problem if my tax money went in part to fund a government-sponsored binding arbitration service for events like that.)

                  “Everything you need is already inside.” -- Bill Bowerman


                  Fat butt on couch

                    What the hell are you babbling about?

                     

                    I can't imagine the intellect was above you...are you still so distracted by the Packers losing?  I would not have thought it so traumatizing to an east coaster.

                    "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

                     


                    Fast is better than long

                      Serious question that i do not know the answer to. Does GDP only include manufactured goods? Does it include service and/or investment income? What I am wondering is it possible to guestimate the total taxable gain for the country? If so then given that and the ability to determine how much revenue the income tax generated it should be easy to determine the current marginal tax rate. Shouldnt that allow us to determine a reasonable flat tax rate?

                      2014 Goals: 2500 miles / sub 2 800m / 4:30 mile / sub 16:30 5K


                      Give a man a fire and he'll be warm the rest of the night;
                      Set a man afire and he'll be warm the rest of his life.

                      What in the Jehu?


                      HobbyJogger & HobbyRacer

                        Serious question that i do not know the answer to. Does GDP only include manufactured goods? Does it include service and/or investment income? What I am wondering is it possible to guestimate the total taxable gain for the country? If so then given that and the ability to determine how much revenue the income tax generated it should be easy to determine the current marginal tax rate. Shouldnt that allow us to determine a reasonable flat tax rate?

                         

                        If you're looking for reasonable, I suggest doing something about the companies putting their headquarters in the Carribbean so they can declare their profits off-shore and pay no US taxes -- or license a big fee to an off-shore subsidiary to shift all their profits out of the US...

                        It's a 5k. It hurt like hell...then I tried to pick it up. The end.

                          On the question of everyone paying taxes. Of course nearly everyone does pay some tax even if they don't earn anything - there are some taxes you just can't avoid paying like sales taxes.

                           

                          Most countries operate some kind of progressive income tax system - where you pay more incrementally on high earnings. Here in the UK the first £7475 of income is tax free (next tax year it'll be £8105).  This is pretty much universally regarded as a good thing, and the rate will most probably rise faster than inflation over the next few years. 

                           

                          Quite apart from any moral arguments, one good thing about having lots of low-paid part-time workers effectively taken out of the income tax system is that there's a big administrative and enforcement burden that goes away.

                            I can't imagine the intellect was above you...

                             

                            You are correct.

                             

                            I think I was just distracted by the zig-zag line from socialism, to an individual writing off a loss due to natural disaster, to employee healthcare contributions, to people addicted to prescription painkillers, to income tax exemption for low earners, to some distinction being drawn between the democrats' forms of deficit spending versus the republicans' forms of deficit spending.

                             

                            Plus it was late and it had been a long day, so I may have been rather muddled.

                            Runners run.

                              And GDP is total market value of all goods and services.  It doesn't include "investment income" per se, because it is not concerned with income.

                              Runners run.


                              Fat butt on couch

                                You are correct.

                                 

                                I think I was just distracted by the zig-zag line from socialism, to an individual writing off a loss due to natural disaster, to employee healthcare contributions, to people addicted to prescription painkillers, to income tax exemption for low earners, to some distinction being drawn between the democrats' forms of deficit spending versus the republicans' forms of deficit spending.

                                 

                                Plus it was late and it had been a long day, so I may have been rather muddled.

                                 

                                The whole thread is muddled, it wasn't just you, so I wasn't really attempting to be linear.  Writing it in 3 pieces with screaming baby interruptions probably did not help.

                                "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand