"A loophole that allows small-business owners to deduct $25,000 for luxury sport-utility vehicles will grow to $100,000 under the $350-billion stimulus plan expected to be approved by the Senate today and signed by President George W. Bush on Monday.
The tax break applies to small businesses -- and to individuals who have set up mini-corporations for tax purposes -- when they purchase a vehicle weighing at least 6,000 pounds.
The provision was created in 1996 to prevent farmers and others from being penalized by the 10-percent luxury tax on vehicles costing over $30,000 when they purchased pickup trucks and tractors.
But the move toward bigger SUVs over the years has increased the number of those vehicles that qualify -- whether they are used for work or not.
Thirty-eight SUV models -- including the Cadillac Escalade, Lincoln Navigator, Chevrolet Suburban 2500, Dodge Durango and the Ford Expedition -- qualify.
Bush wanted Congress to increase the existing deduction to $75,000 to encourage immediate spending by small business. The House of Representatives upped the amount to $100,000. "
Dividend cuts will valid even if you pay no other taxes. What's your point again? Are you being disingenuous and pretending that the credit is bad because they might not pay taxes while the dividend cut is somehow different?
Why don't we look at the numbers and find out which one generates more cash for what groups. There are probably some investors that save more money than all of the credits combined because of the cut on dividends.
The dividend is a cut in the rate dividends are taxed. You will still pay taxes on any dividend paid out to you. It is not a dividend credit that would give you money back even if you had not paid a dime to the government. Since you have to invest the money with absolutely no guarantees, the government should not lower the rate of return or else people will choose not to invest. The stock price could go down. The company could have no profits to pay a dividend on or choose not to pay a dividend (like Microsoft sitting on 40 billion in cash) or even have a loss. The return is hardly guaranteed.
You are the one being outright false on this issue. Even moreso since it takes income to purchase stock and that income is taxed.
The credit isn't bad because they don't pay taxes, it is bad because it is pure wealth redistribution. I don't see how much clearly I can be on that. Arguing the rich should be taxed to build a bridge or dam from which we all benefit is one thing. Arguing they ought to be taxed so the government can just hand the money to someone else is just wrong. It is stealing.
Yes well I call actions as I see them. I don't associate and insinuate in an attempt to assasinate someone's character instead of debate their ideas.
However I'll keep your actions in mind when discussing future ideas with you. I'll understand that you won't understand them, you won't debate them and you will intentionally mischaracterize them as a result.
"A loophole that allows small-business owners to deduct $25,000 for luxury sport-utility vehicles will grow to $100,000 under the $350-billion stimulus plan expected to be approved by the Senate today and signed by President George W. Bush on Monday.
The tax break applies to small businesses -- and to individuals who have set up mini-corporations for tax purposes -- when they purchase a vehicle weighing at least 6,000 pounds.
The provision was created in 1996 to prevent farmers and others from being penalized by the 10-percent luxury tax on vehicles costing over $30,000 when they purchased pickup trucks and tractors.
But the move toward bigger SUVs over the years has increased the number of those vehicles that qualify -- whether they are used for work or not.
Thirty-eight SUV models -- including the Cadillac Escalade, Lincoln Navigator, Chevrolet Suburban 2500, Dodge Durango and the Ford Expedition -- qualify.
Bush wanted Congress to increase the existing deduction to $75,000 to encourage immediate spending by small business. The House of Representatives upped the amount to $100,000. "
And more often than not loopholes serve the rich... who can afford accountants and tax lawyers.
Of course loopholes serve the rich. When you are taxed from a multitude of angles you are more likely to find a way out of one of them. Likewise the middle class and poor do not have to worry about inheritance taxes, capital gains, or dividend taxes.
Likewise all these loopholes do is allow the rich to try to get down to the same tax rate we already give everyone else. Additionally when you take so much from someone, they are naturally going to work to keep it
If you earn 3 million dollars, you are going to owe the government $1,050,000. If you take the remaining $1,950,000 and invest it in a large mansion, you will owe capital gains on it when it appreciates since it is above the individual exemption. Likewise if you invest it in stocks and they go up, you are taxed on the gain. If you stick it in a mattress and die with it, you are taxed again.
When you end up paying so much in taxes, there is more at stake in avoiding them. If my tax bracket were raised a couple of percent, it might mean a few hundred dollars, not a few hundred THOUSAND dollars.
But that's like saying any program that helps the poor is stealing. They're getting services they can't afford on a rich person's dime.
And poor people do pay taxes... they may not pay much in income taxes... but they do pay payroll taxes. And they pay taxes on most things they buy.
Saying it's stealing is oversimplification. Or a lie. Take your pick.
They aren't getting a service. I even said that if it were a service, we could debat the merits of it. It is straight cash in hand. The EITC and child tax credit are refunded even against owing no taxes. They put CASH in hand, nor a service, not a program, not infrastructure.
PS. Technically they are ideas! Some things easily summed up.
I didn't say I only dealt in complex thought. I said you were taking complex ideas and intentionally mischaracterizing them while pointing them at loaded terms. So unions seeking one living wage per family becomes, oh so you hate women.
I know that is a simplified version of it. It is done intentionally, for you.
Here's a fact. 14.7% of Bush's tax cut went to the bottom 60% of tax payers. Does that seem fair?
And you're implying that a poor working family doesn't pay a dime in taxes. But get $3000 of someone else's money. And you know that's not true.
My point is that spending money on services for the poor is also taking money from the rich and using it for services they wouldn't normally afford.
Well it would seem fair if the top percents were paying a disportionate amount of taxes which they do. The top 5% pay over 56% of all tax dollars. That means the bottom 95% only pay 44%. When you get to the top 50%, they pay 96% of all taxes which leaves 4% to the bottom 50%.
So sure if they get a smaller amount of cut, it is because they pay little to nothing in the first place.
Lastly I am not IMPLYING that a poor working family gets $3000 of someone else's money. I am TELLING you they do. It isn't food stamps, it isn't subsidized day care, it isn't medicare, it is CASH IN HAND.
I have fully said that taxes for infrastructure and services are items I could support, but not wealth redistribution.
Here is a link from a fully liberal source that explains it.
As for taxes, most working families making $25,000 would not pay any taxes if they filled out anything besides the 1040EZ.
Likewise they do pay Social Security, the most regressive tax that exists, and one which leftists would never allow touched even when it hurts poor folks more than any other tax.
If you earn 3 million dollars, you are going to owe the government $1,050,000. If you take the remaining $1,950,000 and invest it in a large mansion, you will owe capital gains on it when it appreciates since it is above the individual exemption. Likewise if you invest it in stocks and they go up, you are taxed on the gain. If you stick it in a mattress and die with it, you are taxed again.
When you end up paying so much in taxes, there is more at stake in avoiding them. If my tax bracket were raised a couple of percent, it might mean a few hundred dollars, not a few hundred THOUSAND dollars.
You're so disingenuous it's sickening.
You're not being taxed a second time if your house appreciates. You're taxed on earning from a sale of a house.
You're taxed on the profit from stocks. Like with a house sale, it's new income. Like your next paycheck. New income is taxed, nothing's being taxed twice.
When you die, the money is taxed when it changes hands. Because it's new income for someone else. If the money stays in the mattress it's not taxed. It's taxed when pappa gives it to his son. As it should be because it's new income for the child.
You're not being taxed a second time if your house appreciates. You're taxed on earning from a sale of a house.
You're taxed on the profit from stocks. Like with a house sale, it's new income. Like your next paycheck. New income is taxed, nothing's being taxed twice.
When you die, the money is taxed when it changes hands. Because it's new income for someone else. If the money stays in the mattress it's not taxed. It's taxed when pappa gives it to his son. As it should be because it's new income for the child.
So be sick.
The return on an investment is certainly not guaranteed.
With regard to house appreciation, ever hear of this little thing called, inflation? You house doesn't appreciate because it is suddenly larger or better. It appreciates because the price of everything goes up a bit every year. Unless you want to declare that you would only tax the gain proven to be beyond inflation, then you are taxing people simply for owning their home for a period of time. Housing prices have fits and starts but appreciate between 4-5% a year.
You and I have had this discussion before. You consider all investments "income." Even investments with no guaranteed rate of return are "income" to you. Likewise the fact that you don't have to give your employer money in hopes of getting some back doesn't seem to help you understand the difference between income and investment. It really isn't worth going into again. You don't understand investing and that is fine because you won't make any money from them and hence suffer from your own beliefs.
Comments
"A loophole that allows small-business owners to deduct $25,000 for luxury sport-utility vehicles will grow to $100,000 under the $350-billion stimulus plan expected to be approved by the Senate today and signed by President George W. Bush on Monday.
The tax break applies to small businesses -- and to individuals who have set up mini-corporations for tax purposes -- when they purchase a vehicle weighing at least 6,000 pounds.
The provision was created in 1996 to prevent farmers and others from being penalized by the 10-percent luxury tax on vehicles costing over $30,000 when they purchased pickup trucks and tractors.
But the move toward bigger SUVs over the years has increased the number of those vehicles that qualify -- whether they are used for work or not.
Thirty-eight SUV models -- including the Cadillac Escalade, Lincoln Navigator, Chevrolet Suburban 2500, Dodge Durango and the Ford Expedition -- qualify.
Bush wanted Congress to increase the existing deduction to $75,000 to encourage immediate spending by small business. The House of Representatives upped the amount to $100,000. "
http://www.freep.com/money/autonews/tax23_20030523.htm
Originally posted by bunge
Dividend cuts will valid even if you pay no other taxes. What's your point again? Are you being disingenuous and pretending that the credit is bad because they might not pay taxes while the dividend cut is somehow different?
Why don't we look at the numbers and find out which one generates more cash for what groups. There are probably some investors that save more money than all of the credits combined because of the cut on dividends.
The dividend is a cut in the rate dividends are taxed. You will still pay taxes on any dividend paid out to you. It is not a dividend credit that would give you money back even if you had not paid a dime to the government. Since you have to invest the money with absolutely no guarantees, the government should not lower the rate of return or else people will choose not to invest. The stock price could go down. The company could have no profits to pay a dividend on or choose not to pay a dividend (like Microsoft sitting on 40 billion in cash) or even have a loss. The return is hardly guaranteed.
You are the one being outright false on this issue. Even moreso since it takes income to purchase stock and that income is taxed.
The credit isn't bad because they don't pay taxes, it is bad because it is pure wealth redistribution. I don't see how much clearly I can be on that. Arguing the rich should be taxed to build a bridge or dam from which we all benefit is one thing. Arguing they ought to be taxed so the government can just hand the money to someone else is just wrong. It is stealing.
Nick
And poor people do pay taxes... they may not pay much in income taxes... but they do pay payroll taxes. And they pay taxes on most things they buy.
Saying it's stealing is oversimplification. Or a lie. Take your pick.
Originally posted by trumptman
Yes well I call actions as I see them. I don't associate and insinuate in an attempt to assasinate someone's character instead of debate their ideas.
However I'll keep your actions in mind when discussing future ideas with you. I'll understand that you won't understand them, you won't debate them and you will intentionally mischaracterize them as a result.
Have a nice day.
Nick
-------------------------------------------------------------
" Yes well I call actions as I see them "
-------------------------------------------------------------
Then you need glasses.
Seems to me you were trying the assasination technique when you first accused me of wanting the economy to stay in the red so Bush would lose.
This is why I haven't discussed your " topic ". You started this out by insulting me.
What this all was about basically is you don't like me because I have liberal ideas ( you've made that abundantly clear in your statements ).
You tried to discredit me ( with your statement about me wanting the economy to remain in the dumps ) from the get go.
It didn't work as expected but your ego wouldn't let it go.
Now it's it's obvious you're in a corner so you say goodbye with another insult ( that ego again ) instead of apologizing.
If you had addressed me in the first place with a question intsead of an insult I would have responded to the topic at hand.
Yeah, great debate technique.
Originally posted by trumptman
I don't associate and insinuate in an attempt to assasinate someone's character instead of debate their ideas.
Pfffft!
Yeah right!
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Looks like it applies to buying to me.
"A loophole that allows small-business owners to deduct $25,000 for luxury sport-utility vehicles will grow to $100,000 under the $350-billion stimulus plan expected to be approved by the Senate today and signed by President George W. Bush on Monday.
The tax break applies to small businesses -- and to individuals who have set up mini-corporations for tax purposes -- when they purchase a vehicle weighing at least 6,000 pounds.
The provision was created in 1996 to prevent farmers and others from being penalized by the 10-percent luxury tax on vehicles costing over $30,000 when they purchased pickup trucks and tractors.
But the move toward bigger SUVs over the years has increased the number of those vehicles that qualify -- whether they are used for work or not.
Thirty-eight SUV models -- including the Cadillac Escalade, Lincoln Navigator, Chevrolet Suburban 2500, Dodge Durango and the Ford Expedition -- qualify.
Bush wanted Congress to increase the existing deduction to $75,000 to encourage immediate spending by small business. The House of Representatives upped the amount to $100,000. "
http://www.freep.com/money/autonews/tax23_20030523.htm
I knew it was a business deduction though. You are correct that it is for more than leasing though.
In a way you kind of show the problems with attempting to decide issues progressively with tax breaks. There is always a loophole.
Nick
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Pfffft!
Yeah right!
I can understand your confusion Shawn. You still think one line sarcastic comments are "ideas."
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I can understand your confusion Shawn. You still think one line sarcastic comments are "ideas."
Nick
Yes and you only deal in complex thought.
PS. Technically they are ideas! Some things easily summed up.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
And more often than not loopholes serve the rich... who can afford accountants and tax lawyers.
Of course loopholes serve the rich. When you are taxed from a multitude of angles you are more likely to find a way out of one of them. Likewise the middle class and poor do not have to worry about inheritance taxes, capital gains, or dividend taxes.
Likewise all these loopholes do is allow the rich to try to get down to the same tax rate we already give everyone else. Additionally when you take so much from someone, they are naturally going to work to keep it
If you earn 3 million dollars, you are going to owe the government $1,050,000. If you take the remaining $1,950,000 and invest it in a large mansion, you will owe capital gains on it when it appreciates since it is above the individual exemption. Likewise if you invest it in stocks and they go up, you are taxed on the gain. If you stick it in a mattress and die with it, you are taxed again.
When you end up paying so much in taxes, there is more at stake in avoiding them. If my tax bracket were raised a couple of percent, it might mean a few hundred dollars, not a few hundred THOUSAND dollars.
Nick
Originally posted by chu_bakka
But that's like saying any program that helps the poor is stealing. They're getting services they can't afford on a rich person's dime.
And poor people do pay taxes... they may not pay much in income taxes... but they do pay payroll taxes. And they pay taxes on most things they buy.
Saying it's stealing is oversimplification. Or a lie. Take your pick.
They aren't getting a service. I even said that if it were a service, we could debat the merits of it. It is straight cash in hand. The EITC and child tax credit are refunded even against owing no taxes. They put CASH in hand, nor a service, not a program, not infrastructure.
It is pure theft.
Nick
Originally posted by jimmac
Yes and you only deal in complex thought.
PS. Technically they are ideas! Some things easily summed up.
I didn't say I only dealt in complex thought. I said you were taking complex ideas and intentionally mischaracterizing them while pointing them at loaded terms. So unions seeking one living wage per family becomes, oh so you hate women.
I know that is a simplified version of it. It is done intentionally, for you.
Nick
Here's a fact. 14.7% of Bush's tax cut went to the bottom 60% of tax payers. Does that seem fair?
And you're implying that a poor working family doesn't pay a dime in taxes. But get $3000 of someone else's money. And you know that's not true.
My point is that spending money on services for the poor is also taking money from the rich and using it for services they wouldn't normally afford.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Ain't it a b!tch bein' rich.
Here's a fact. 14.7% of Bush's tax cut went to the bottom 60% of tax payers. Does that seem fair?
And you're implying that a poor working family doesn't pay a dime in taxes. But get $3000 of someone else's money. And you know that's not true.
My point is that spending money on services for the poor is also taking money from the rich and using it for services they wouldn't normally afford.
Well it would seem fair if the top percents were paying a disportionate amount of taxes which they do. The top 5% pay over 56% of all tax dollars. That means the bottom 95% only pay 44%. When you get to the top 50%, they pay 96% of all taxes which leaves 4% to the bottom 50%.
So sure if they get a smaller amount of cut, it is because they pay little to nothing in the first place.
Lastly I am not IMPLYING that a poor working family gets $3000 of someone else's money. I am TELLING you they do. It isn't food stamps, it isn't subsidized day care, it isn't medicare, it is CASH IN HAND.
I have fully said that taxes for infrastructure and services are items I could support, but not wealth redistribution.
Here is a link from a fully liberal source that explains it.
EITC
Nick
So you're saying someone making $25000 a year pays NO taxes? At all? They NET that much...
As for taxes, most working families making $25,000 would not pay any taxes if they filled out anything besides the 1040EZ.
Likewise they do pay Social Security, the most regressive tax that exists, and one which leftists would never allow touched even when it hurts poor folks more than any other tax.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
You are the one being outright false on this issue. Even moreso since it takes income to purchase stock and that income is taxed.
There are rich people that live off of these dividends and nothing else. These people have no reason to get a tax break.
Originally posted by trumptman
If you earn 3 million dollars, you are going to owe the government $1,050,000. If you take the remaining $1,950,000 and invest it in a large mansion, you will owe capital gains on it when it appreciates since it is above the individual exemption. Likewise if you invest it in stocks and they go up, you are taxed on the gain. If you stick it in a mattress and die with it, you are taxed again.
When you end up paying so much in taxes, there is more at stake in avoiding them. If my tax bracket were raised a couple of percent, it might mean a few hundred dollars, not a few hundred THOUSAND dollars.
You're so disingenuous it's sickening.
You're not being taxed a second time if your house appreciates. You're taxed on earning from a sale of a house.
You're taxed on the profit from stocks. Like with a house sale, it's new income. Like your next paycheck. New income is taxed, nothing's being taxed twice.
When you die, the money is taxed when it changes hands. Because it's new income for someone else. If the money stays in the mattress it's not taxed. It's taxed when pappa gives it to his son. As it should be because it's new income for the child.
Originally posted by bunge
You're so disingenuous it's sickening.
You're not being taxed a second time if your house appreciates. You're taxed on earning from a sale of a house.
You're taxed on the profit from stocks. Like with a house sale, it's new income. Like your next paycheck. New income is taxed, nothing's being taxed twice.
When you die, the money is taxed when it changes hands. Because it's new income for someone else. If the money stays in the mattress it's not taxed. It's taxed when pappa gives it to his son. As it should be because it's new income for the child.
So be sick.
The return on an investment is certainly not guaranteed.
With regard to house appreciation, ever hear of this little thing called, inflation? You house doesn't appreciate because it is suddenly larger or better. It appreciates because the price of everything goes up a bit every year. Unless you want to declare that you would only tax the gain proven to be beyond inflation, then you are taxing people simply for owning their home for a period of time. Housing prices have fits and starts but appreciate between 4-5% a year.
You and I have had this discussion before. You consider all investments "income." Even investments with no guaranteed rate of return are "income" to you. Likewise the fact that you don't have to give your employer money in hopes of getting some back doesn't seem to help you understand the difference between income and investment. It really isn't worth going into again. You don't understand investing and that is fine because you won't make any money from them and hence suffer from your own beliefs.
Nick