IRS Loopholes

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?

^ Sir, I am in your debt. Born genius.

^Deebo!!

@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 thank the Supper Pacts for that

As a Sec 501©(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.

[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”

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.

There is a very significant distinction to be made between capital gains and income, and the tax treatment for each should be separate accordingly. In your gas station example, your income is taxed as revenue net of expenses, and is unrelated to your initial investment. Cap gains would come into play if 10 years later you decide to sell your gas station for more than you paid for it. Using your logic, the seller should pay tax on the entire sale price rather than just the incremental amount.

I agree as I said above, 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”

If you really want a fair tax then you would move to a flat tax with a single standard deduction that is the same for everyone.

But no on really wants a fair tax. What they really want is a someone else to pay more while they pay less.

Even the wealthy who support higher taxes on the “rich” are hypocrites because if they felt that they should pay more taxes then they could either take fewer deductions or gift money to the Treasury.

Even the hero of the left Michael Moore took huge tax credits when filming his movies, buys a mansion and then runs around saying that the rich should have fewer of the very tax benifits he takes advantage of.

The church also holds several non-tax-exempt corporations, such asBonneville International and the Deseret News.

I think LBriscoe is pointing out that the capital gains to which you wish to tax are really just another form of prior savings and that savings has already been taxed. The fact that the asset in which the prior savings has been converted has changed in value is not really income in the most basic sense. The US has long recognized this which is why the BEA does not count capital gains as part of the US National Income

<!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } -->

I wouldn’t call the capital gains tax at 15% a “loophole.” It encourages long term investment and something that anyone can take advantage of and should. The problem is that most of the middle class does not and my guess is most of the middle class only hold stock or mutual funds in retirement funds and in a retirement fund there is no cap gains tax. Who’s fault is that?

What I find hysterical is when bottom feeders like Warren Buffett come out and make egregious statements of how low his tax rate is to get people all riled up. The average person does not understand that WB probably doesn’t have any wage income or it is minimal. You could raise the personal income tax to 99% for people who make over 1 mil and it probably won’t affect him at all. The Dems would love to European level tax rates here. OMG, Warren Buffett’s secretary pays more in taxes than he does!!! Yeah, sure she does.

What “loopholes” are there for people who don’t earn much considering most people don’t pay taxes in the US? Is that a joke? Is the EIC a “loophole” or a form of welfare?

And how much have those entities donated to the Romney campaign?

I don’t understand why it is taking at face value that “encouraging long term investment” and simultaneously discouraging consumption is a good thing. Personally, I think the less impact the gov’t has on the economy, while meeting its financial obligations, the better. The current crop of Republicans should follow their hero Ronald Reagan and advocate for a similar tax rate on both earned and investment income.

What is a “supper pact” and why did I just get hungry?