I love it when the democrats talk about all of the tax loopholes given to the rich. It is hilarious since 99% of all the loopholes are for lower income filers. These loopholes are phased out as your income rises. About the only loophole for the ‘rich’ (it is actually is for everybody but the rich are more likely to have it) is capital gains for investment income is only taxed at 15% as opposed to your income bracket rate. As your income increases, losses on rental property will not lower your adjust gross income, student loan interest is phased out, mortgage interest is phased out…these are just a few examples of the ‘biggies’.
The media hype about loopholes for the rich is so incorrect. Ask your CPA about it - he/she will tell you the same.
Don’t get me started.
You can fondle the cube, but it will not respond.
Studying With
Please unload.
Capital gains at 15% is a biggie, especially since the only people who’s total income is based on cap gains is the rich. Also, mortgage income hits “the rich” at a higher bracket so it doesn’t necessarily phase out. Plus, it phases out at 1 million – do we really need to give someone a tax break on a million dollar mortgage?
Studying With
What about equality?
Well Deebo since you ask…
Phase outs are not loopholes. “99% of loopholse are for the lower income filers” Can’t believe you just said that. stick with what you know please. ie your sh*t Juice
" CFAvsMBA is the brah'da, that plays the role of another brah'da, that is a brah'da"
Studying With
I did just say it. Rest assured we’re all thinking it. Maybe I’d respect you a lil if you’d comment being you’re the almighty CPA who somehow broke your way on to AF. Otherwise keep chuggin the hatorade.
@CFAvsMBA Actually you said “99% of the loopholes” not “99% of the loopholse”…
@stormyhotel I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a generally accepted definition of tax loophole. One person’s tax break is another’s loophole. If all tax breaks are loopholes, then CFAvsMBA is likely correct.
“(it is actually is for everybody but the rich are more likely to have it)”.. Name one loophole “for the poor” which is not “( actually for everybody but the Poor are more likely to have it)…
And I suppose the poor have tons of lobbyist creating these special loopholes just for the poor. Generally, the Dems are more concerned with corporations( Say GE, Exxon) exploiting the tax rules than wealthy individuals who make $2000 grand a day such as your self.
Bow out lil hommie.
" CFAvsMBA is the brah'da, that plays the role of another brah'da, that is a brah'da"
… politicians would never give lower income people breaks or benefits to get votes…
jmh530..thank you for the valuable contribution to this dialogue..I am sure you can also find a generally accepted definition of valuable contribution.
" CFAvsMBA is the brah'da, that plays the role of another brah'da, that is a brah'da"
Studying With
EITC and Child Tax Credit. Many single moms (which is a whole nother can of worms) not only get child support (tax free of course), but many also pay zero in federal/state taxes when the aforementioned credits are factored in.
well it depends on how you view a loophole. If you view a tax loophole as a means by which on party avoids complying with the tax law (e.g. paying the statutory rate) by taking advantge of some abiguious portion of the law, then none of the things mentioned are tax loopholes.
Most of what people call tax loopholes are benifits provided by Congress to buy votes. The so called loopholes were placed into the code by Congress with the intent that they be used and as a way for them to say “see what I did for you”
So, why now is everyone crying that people take advantage of very goodies that Congress handed out?
I think what CFAvsMBA is saying that the vast majority of those breaks, in terms of thier reduction to tax as a percent of income, are provided to lower income filers. This can be seen simply by looking at the fact that something like 47% of filers paid NO income tax.
As for real estate interest deduction, you need to realize that in many areas of the country a millon dollar mortgage is not a mansion. If could in fact be a 980 sf house in Palo Alto, CA
I would like to make $2000 grand a day. That’s like, over a million.
Deebo stop..Men can get those same credits!! I guess the war on women keeps raging on.
" CFAvsMBA is the brah'da, that plays the role of another brah'da, that is a brah'da"
Those damn lazy single moms keep getting 99% of the loopholes
" CFAvsMBA is the brah'da, that plays the role of another brah'da, that is a brah'da"
Stormy. What’s your response to the EITC that CvM also mentioned? Directly from the IRS website:
“EITC, the earned income tax credit is a benefit for certain people who work and have low to moderate wages. A tax credit means more money in your pocket. It reduces the amount of tax you owe and may also give you a refund.”
You can fondle the cube, but it will not respond.
http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/top10-percent-income-earners
A) Untill the “poor” are paying any taxes at all, why would you even arguing about ”loopholes” its a moot point. You don’t need exemptions/credits/loopholes if you aren’t paying taxes.
B) That “sh*t juice” thread is much more valueble than this argument…
C) Find the thread here or google “barstool economics”
“In releasing his 2010 and estimated-2011 tax returns, the Romney campaign acknowledged that Mitt Romney made nearly $13 million in “carried interest” — “money that’s paid out to fund managers in return for their labor.” Rather than treating this money as regular income, it’s comes out of a company’s profits and is taxed at the 15% capital gains tax rate — hence, it’s a ‘loophole.’
So, how much did this loophole save Romney? According to experts at the Center for American Progress, around $2.6 million or 20%
According to IRS
Tax Year 2011 maximum credit:
Lets say a lazy single mom with 2 kids gets $5112
Romney gets $2.6Million
$2.6/5112 = 509
Romney = 509 lazy single moms…there goes your 99% theory
My work here is done..
" CFAvsMBA is the brah'da, that plays the role of another brah'da, that is a brah'da"
Federal income taxes paid by Romney in 2011 (estimated by him): $3.2 million
Federal income taxes paid by Mitt in 2010 (actual): $3.0 million
Mitt’s charitable contributions in 2010 and 2011 combined: $7.1 million
I can’t stand the guy, but hard to argue that he’s not paying his fair share.
You can fondle the cube, but it will not respond.
Studying With
I would be interested in seeing the effective tax rate paid by people such as Mitt compared to those who qualifies for the EITC.
He only contributes to his morman church and gets a $7.1Million tax break( Higgmonds numbers). The church then contributes to his presidential compaigne. Not a bad deal at all.
Deebo..Child support money the lazy single moms receive is net taxes( the dad already paid the taxes on it). And the money is called child support ( are you ready) because it is suppposed to be use to support the child. To stop dead beat dads from walking away from their responsibilities. That way the state wont have to take care of the lazy single moms and their babies. Now you not against child support are you hommie?
" CFAvsMBA is the brah'da, that plays the role of another brah'da, that is a brah'da"
Studying With
^ Sir, I am in your debt. Born genius.
^Deebo!!
" CFAvsMBA is the brah'da, that plays the role of another brah'da, that is a brah'da"
@stormyhotel ABC news says he donated $4mn combined over the past five years to LDS, but I did not see LDS among the top contributors to Romney’s campaign.
stormy. jmh350 is correct, only $4MM of the $7MM was for LDS. I deduct my contributions to my church, and I assume President Obama does as well.
Interesting that you mention that child support is paid with after-tax dollars. Mitt’s income is entirely from capital gains on investments he made with after-tax dollars. I don’t think the child support dollars should be taxed twice, so the capital gains shouldn’t be taxed twice either.
Here’s the link to find your Congressional representative. I trust you will call them right away to voice your support for eliminating the capital gains tax. Afterall, taxing money twice results in taking food out of the mouths of children.
http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/
You can fondle the cube, but it will not respond.
You can thank the Supper Pacts for that
" CFAvsMBA is the brah'da, that plays the role of another brah'da, that is a brah'da"
As a Sec 501(c)(3) organization, the Mormon Church is not permitted to make donations to political candidates or super PACs. Internally, the Mormon Church has banned its members from making contributions individually, although some had made contributions to both Romney and Obama before the ban was announced.
You can fondle the cube, but it will not respond.
[quote=higgmond]
Mitt’s income is entirely from capital gains on investments he made with after-tax dollars. I don’t think the child support dollars should be taxed twice, so the capital gains shouldn’t be taxed twice either.
This is one of the dumber arguments coming out of the right. The fact is that all capital gains/income is ultimately originated from after tax dollars. If I save up and buy a gas station with after tax dollars should I not have to pay taxes on gains because the initial investment was made in after tax dollars? Mitt made a shit-ton of money over the years and the stability and structure provided by the US Gov’t allows him to kick back and rely on his nest egg to finance whatever endeavors he wants to pursue –all at the rock bottom price of 15% (on gains) per year.
This loophole argument is a distraction and a bit pointless. What you should be arguing is aggregate effective tax rates. As a percentage of income, all studies seem to show that as a percentage of income wealthier people pay more than those who are poor. http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10068/effective_tax_rates_2006.pdf
I’m in no way supporting “loopholes” but at the end of the day loopholes don’t matter if you’re looking at things on an aggregate level. On the aggregate, the rich pay a higher percentage of their income in Federal related taxes.*
*I do not support lowering taxes for the rich; like Puff Daddy once said, “Mo Money Mo Problems”
Being Born Wealthy > Being Jewish or WASPY > Born Pretty > Top 5 MBA > CFA > Avg MBA > Born middle class > Born lower class > Born in crack house > Working in IT but looking to switch to buyside
I actually have no problem with capital gains being taxed and I think the majority of people who have a signifcant portion of their income from capital gains don’t either. It’s fun to make an extreme statement here every now and then though to facilitate conversation. I would object to taxing capital gains as ordinary income though. The 15% rate seems pretty fair to me.
You can fondle the cube, but it will not respond.
Pages