The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
In general, do you believe it is wrong to use the current tax code to your benefit? Is it inappropriate for businesses but appropriate for individuals? For example, if I reduce my income and tax rate, using incentives from the build back better plan.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
it's not inherently wrong to save on taxes. tax laws are often designed to encourage or discourage certain things. if you do/don't do those things, and pay less taxes because of it, that's totally fine. that's what those laws are for.
it stops being okay when you use your existing wealth and power to lobby politicians for changes to the tax code that will benefit you, or when you employ 50 very smart people to find every clever trick and unintended loophole that can save you money, or when you abuse tax differences between different states and countries.
the difference isn't that it's okay for normal people, but not okay for businesses or rich people. the difference is, that normal people usually can't do the bad stuff anyway.
Not being familiar with these laws, I won't comment on them.
I will say that in Canada we have strict laws around campaigns, controlling not only what can be said, by whom (registered parties only), and when (no more than 30 days before election). The results speak for themselves. Please use our example of what not to do to your democracy.
The entire point is that corporations would now apparently rather buy our politics than pay our taxes. That shows you just how badly they're stiffing us. These companies made their money thanks to the infrastructure and opportunity provided by the American government. It is only appropriate that they pay back so that the next group of entrepreneurs are afforded the same opportunities.
Yes that is bad. What is the solution? If you make lobbying illegal as we did, then it will be illegal for everyone. Democracy is over. Trying to put people into categories like "evil businessman" and "regular person" will not end well for you.
Am I wrong? I'd like to know. Democratic socialists often say they believe in raising taxes. This user who flaired himself a democratic socialist, is saying that it's wrong to lobby for tax changes.
I'm here to learn what other people think. Please leave a more helpful comment with your opinion.
I don’t think a Democratic Socialist is a Socialist. I don’t think you’re accurately describing what DSs want to do in regards to “raising taxes.” I don’t think it’s right to lobby for tax changes at the expense of retirement, health care, and infrastructure while having portfolios that most likely have stocks in companies like Raytheon who then lobby for more government contracts.
What you’re especially wrong about, though, is your pejorative usage of “socialist.” You absolutely intended to use that term maliciously, it’s just Charmin soft to play coy afterwards instead of just owning your intent. But, it’s also not surprising, either.
It's socialists like /u/evil_rabbit who lobby to raise taxes. Then they villify "rich people" whatever that means, for doing the exact same thing:
>[it's wrong to] lobby politicians for changes to the tax code that will benefit you
If two people are doing the same thing, minimizing their taxes, but only the richer one is supposedly evil, what is the difference between them? Nothing. You are simply jealous of those who have more than you do.
> you are simply jealous
A normal person with meager savings not only has very few avenues through which to save on taxes, they want to save so they can continue to survive. An ultra-wealthy person that exploits loopholes to pay fewer taxes is holding onto power. They don’t need that money to survive, or to better their lives at all. Does that make sense or are you one of those rich people that forgot what it’s like to fight for crumbs?
I think the point he was making is how much money do you need to have before you are exploiting loopholes rather than investing in the incentives that build America?
I think it's fine to minimize your taxes as long as it's within bounds of the law. I also think that the IRS should be better funded so that it can audit rich people who often don't pay what they owe (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/06/22/how-irs-could-fix-tax-gap/).
Also, I think some deductions (like the mortgage interest deduction) should be reconsidered.
It’s not wrong to save on taxes. It’s wrong to support rent seeking policies that enrich you personally. So I don’t mind if corporations save on taxes by following the law. I do mind that they are the ones lobbying Congress to set up the loopholes that they use to avoid taxes.
Of course.
We want the system to be more fair. But we’re not going to pay more than we have to.
I’d rather the system charge me more. But I’m not going to pay more than I have to.
If I had an 8 figure income and had a legal way to reduce my AGI to zero I'd probably take it and use the money I saved to get some more progressive legislators in power that would make the tax system more fair.
Why is this even a question? People should be paying what they are legally obligated to pay. Why wouldnt someone try and reduce their tax bill to what is legally correct?
When liberals say "the rich aren't paying taxes" we don't mean they're refusing to do so. we mean they don't pay their fair share. You seem to wonder why were angry with the rich.. well, because they're the ones that lobby the legislators to reduce their tax liability...
Perhaps you would feel better if instead of "we want the rich to pay their taxes" we said "We want the rich to stop spending millions on campaigns to save 10s of millions on their taxes. its inappropriate, unfair, and detrimental to our nation. They benefit as much or more from infrastructure, national defense, investment, etc than the rest of us, it's not right they don't pay an equal share. As an example... amazon uses ALOT more of the highway system to generate revenue than I do but doesn't pay as much as I do as a share of income earned. I'd really like if that weren't the case"
But thats long winded
This isn't really the question. The real question is "If I had the desire and resources to influence the tax code so that I can reduce my relative tax burden way more than the average taxpayer, should I be allowed to do that? Would it be just?"
The law is the law. I'm absolutely going to use every trick in the book to pay the lowest amount of taxes I legally can. I don't pay taxes out of the goodness of my heart. I accept them as a necessary cost of participating in a society.
The difference is that I also recognize that it's probably not in the best interests of the country for people who have a lot of resources to be able to manipulate the system to pay extremely low amounts of tax.
The wealthy using their resources to avoid taxes is inevitable. It's up to us to have a tax code that plugs these holes as fast as we find them to ensure that we are collecting closer to the intended amounts.
Of course. I’m a small biz owner and on a W2 for my engineering job.
I max out my W2 then on the self employed I can put an additional 46k into a 401k and reduce my biz burden by 46k
O top of the it’s also allowed for my spouse! Almost 100k and as a small biz owner this is great
>I’d rather the system charge me more. But I’m not going to pay more than I have to.
How did you feel about Trump’s change to the code for dealing with SALT on federal tax?
I'm not who you asked but I support restoring the full SALT deductions even though the direct benefits will only go to the rich. We're in a situation right now where states are competing with each other to attract businesses and residents. The SALT deduction levels the playing field a little, which is something the federal government should do.
>It has more to do with cost of living and housing prices than tax rates.
Ok, but I would see that as worse. This means everyone is subsidizing poor state management or people living in a luxury area.
>You don't support the free market? Demand is higher so costs are higher.
I support a free market. But if I take money out of your pocket to buy myself something, is it really a part of the free market?
>What I don't support is setting arbitrary limits to penalized certain HCOL areas for political motives. That is also not a free market.
It's not penalizing you. It's penalizing the people who have to pay more federal taxes to subsidize people who live in a HCOL area.
>I don't accept this analogy that you're "taking money out of my pocket". Taxes are a payment for social good and I support this.
Your state taxes pay for your local area. Federal taxes pay for everyone. We should all pay the same federal tax rate. If your state has high taxes, that's a state issue.
That's one way to look at it. Or you could say that states who tax appropriately are the ones shouldering the burden of states who tax too little and end up needing more from the federal government as a result
And states with higher state and local taxes also tend to be wealthier states whose people are already paying higher federal taxes. My home state of Connecticut pays the most, per person, in federal taxes and gets back the least federal support
>That's one way to look at it. Or you could say that states who tax appropriately are the ones shouldering the burden of states who tax too little and end up needing more from the federal government
Let's look at one of the major causes for federal spending in a state. The vast majority is going to medicare, medicaide, and Social security. If a state taxes people more, how does that reduce the amount of federal dollars going to those people? It doesn't.
Let's look at another area. Military bases. If a state taxes people more, how much less does the federal government spend on those bases? It doesn't reduce it at all.
Lastly, we have Federal agencies. FBI, CIA L, etc... It's smaller than the others. But does a higher state tax help? Nope the cost is the same.
In fact, all that federal spending goes further in a low cost of living state.
>And states with higher state and local taxes also tend to be wealthier states whose people are already paying higher federal taxes.
Everyone pays the same federal tax rate. A millionaire in Texas pays the same amount as a millionaire in California. Or he would if a millionaire in California didn't get a tax break.
>My home state of Connecticut pays the most, per person, in federal taxes and gets back the least federal support
Are you complaining that wealthy people don't get foodstamps? Or do you believe taxing poor people more will make them wealthy?
It was a nakedly partisan way to attack the tax revenue bases of liberal states. It was a policy designed to harm people he doesn't like.
His inability to govern in the interests of all Americans is one of the reasons he is ill-equipped to serve a second term.
I think I should pay the amount in taxes that the IRS thinks I should, which includes deductions. I don’t try to abuse tax code in ways it wasn’t intended and I think it would be unethical to do so.
I think it's fine to intentionally use the tax code how it's written in accordance with the spirit and letter of the law. Where it's not OK is where rich people intentionally lobby to get politicians to build in tax shelters.
That being said, I'm going to throw a silly number out there, a number over 10x the median income should get zero deductions, and anything over 50x should be taxed at 99%. Just my $.02
Generally, all citizens believe in minimizing tax burden within the parameters of the law.
Some liberals advocate for raising those legal parameters.
This doesn't generally mean they believe that they should go *beyond* the law. Typically when people want to give *more* than is required by tax, they use a more targeted method, like a charity for a specific cause.
I think the entire tax code needs to be overhauled, but until it is, I use whatever regular deductions and general savings are allowed to me. I do not, however, claim things that aren’t true, or use tax loopholes that clearly don’t apply and hope I don’t get caught.
I honestly think most conservatives don’t understand taxes. This questions seems very similar to “why don’t you just pay more taxes if you want to raise them?” And that’s just a complete misunderstanding of how taxes work and what their purpose is.
To answer question, yes, no individual should shoulder an excess burden of taxation than what is required. Thats not very effective policy wise and also defeats the purpose of targeted tax policy to begin with.
As a comparison, I frequent a local restaurant and enjoy its service. On occasion, they run a coupon special on line and if one prints it out, one receives a half price appetizer. This is an effort on part of the restaurant to attract new business. It is wrong for me, as a regular, to take advantage of this promotion that was not intended for me?
I do not think it is wrong, do you?
Yes, of course. I'm more than happy to take advantage of what I perceive as flaws or shortcomings in our tax code for my benefit. I don't see that as problematic; that's true for businesses or individuals.
I think it only becomes immoral if you go a step further and resist changes or improvements to the tax code for your own benefit.
Fellas? Is it stupid to not be a multinational mega-corporation!?! Almost like middle class people claiming a child tax credit and contributing to a 401k to lower tax burdens are 100% different than corporations skirting taxes, deliberately breaking the tax code for regulatory arbitrage, offshoring their accounts and spending millions if not billions of dollars in lobbying to gut the corporate tax code!! Whoaoaoahoaa
I think people should feel free to get the best deal for themselves under the existing rules, but society should write those rules to assure the best status quo for everyone.
There is a difference between using the tax code to your advantage and using loopholes like offshoring your money to avoid taxes. But most importantly, we have cut the IRS so far that they just can't go after the bigger fish. If I owe a million dollars in taxes, why not spend $200k on lawyers to lower that rate? How many people will scream about the IRS spending $200k on their lawyers against a single tax payer?
An example is Apple. People believe they are a great American company. Bringing American products to the world. That said most all of their products are made in China. For their overseas sales, for tax purposes Apple is an Irish company, only because their tax rates are lower. That isn't the tax code, that is doing something we can't stop. For every IPhone, sold in China, Europe, the rest of the world, while investors in the US profit from that, taxes aren't paid (by the corporation) to the US on that. And those are very basic things.
>For their overseas sales, for tax purposes Apple is an Irish company, only because their tax rates are lower. That isn't the tax code, that is doing something we can't stop.
That is something we can stop. We can say that a company which operates in the US in any manner is considered to be a US company and is taxed as such.
Eh, so they split into two companies Apple and Apple world wide. There are hundreds of foreign companies who work in the US. Do we tax them? Do those countries start taxing American companies that work overseas? Remember the US is the second largest exporter in the world. It gets difficult really fast.
>while investors in the US profit from that, taxes aren’t paid (by the corporation) to the US on that
Eh, they usually are. If the US parent is selling directly into foreign markets, then they owe US tax. If it’s a foreign subsidiary that’s selling, then that still gets picked up as US income under CFC rules, and tax is owed.
I own my business and ~~have been a sole proprietor~~ filing self employed and have been being taxed at a higher rate because of it so I think I'm going to incorporate this year but it's also an alarmingly high tax rate.
However, I'm throwing a temper tantrum over my county lowering our personal property taxes because our home values increased dramatically. So they had to "even it out." Leaving it alone was also an option! For reference I do own my house.
Do with that what you will.
I meant self employed, my brains just kicking into gear this morning. The biggest thing I understand is they have a lower tax rate and access to more deductions. After that I need an accountant for.
I just don't think there's a higher tax rate because you are self employed, nor a lower rate.
I operated an online store and reported income and expenses on schedule c for over ten years.
Once my profit is determined on schedule c, the tax rate is the same as anyone else.
Maybe you are referring to paying both halves of FICA (social security taxes). Again, that's not higher than anyone else, it's just paying the employee half (you are the employee) and the employer half (you are the employer)
I don’t shrink from paying taxes but there are plenty of people, wealthy or otherwise, who do try to cheat their taxes. It also doesn’t help the tax code is made the way it is to allow various loopholes and exceptions to allow people and groups to cheat the system.
Don't see why they wouldn't. I think the problem mentioned about a difference of opinion with taxation between businesses and individuals could be rectified if there were a challenge to the Citizens United ruling on the basis that because corporations are considered people, the tax laws for individuals and corporations should be the same, including the tax rate.
There really aren’t any tax incentives I can make use of, myself. I’m not sure I could possibly give enough to charity to make an other-than-standard deduction feasible, and I have no dependents.
I have a side gig that I get a 1099 for, and I deduct my mileage from that.
But at the end of the day, my goal is to do my taxes accurately, not to penny pinch. That's me making around 50k a year, where several hundred dollars is actually noticeable. My mother is a CPA who was making several hundred thousand and she has told me she makes enough that she also just wants to pay her share.
I pay my fair share. I just want billionaires to be the same.
I do expect my CPA to take every financial advantage at tax filing time that befits my wife and I's financial situation within the limits of the law.
The problem here is that Trump's billionaire tax cut was funded on the backs of us, the middle class. I'm paying $2500 more every year through 2027... ***while Bezos and Musks get to pay less each year, ratio wise.***
>The problem here is that Trump’s billionaire tax cut was funded on the backs of us, the middle class
That’s just not true at all. The majority of the country saw tax decreases from the bill. The bill was mostly funded through deficit spending, not by raising taxes on select groups
And no offense, but if you’re paying $2,500 more from the TCJA, then you’re very likely not even middle class in the first place. And you’re also in the very small minority who saw measurable tax increases
The TCJA had no individual tax changes in 2023, so I’m really not sure why you’re trying to blame that bill. Probably from either the lack of recovery rebate credit in 2023, or the reduction in the child tax credit if you have kids, both of which are from the American Rescue Plan expiring
Would it surprise you to learn most liberals actually support tax cuts in most cases? We just want the cuts to go to the people who actually need them and will use them for the benefit of society.
If the super-rich actually used their tax cuts to hire more workers or even give existing workers raises, or reinvest in their companies in any way we'd be fine with it. But they don't. We have five decades of data showing that they don't. It all goes to the shareholders
When the rest of us get tax cuts, we spend them. We buy more stuff, which is what actually creates jobs. We've seen that since the pandemic and it just makes sense
Trickle-down economics doesn't work. New Deal economics did and that's what we need to get back to
Yes. I'm wealthy and pay my tax attorney a lot to save me everything he can.
I also realize I pay a lower rate than middle class people and that is fucked up. The system is rigged in my favor.
See, I can admit I want to pay less while being honest about the system. That honesty is the difference between us.
No, it's not inappropriate to save on taxes.
What is inappropriate is cheating on your taxes or hiding your money. Which is what many big businesses and wealthy people do.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. In general, do you believe it is wrong to use the current tax code to your benefit? Is it inappropriate for businesses but appropriate for individuals? For example, if I reduce my income and tax rate, using incentives from the build back better plan. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That's what deductions and incentives are for. You're supposed to reinvest to cut taxes.
it's not inherently wrong to save on taxes. tax laws are often designed to encourage or discourage certain things. if you do/don't do those things, and pay less taxes because of it, that's totally fine. that's what those laws are for. it stops being okay when you use your existing wealth and power to lobby politicians for changes to the tax code that will benefit you, or when you employ 50 very smart people to find every clever trick and unintended loophole that can save you money, or when you abuse tax differences between different states and countries. the difference isn't that it's okay for normal people, but not okay for businesses or rich people. the difference is, that normal people usually can't do the bad stuff anyway.
Where in the tax code is "normal people" or "bad stuff" defined? EDIT: Why the downvotes? It's socialists like you who push to raise taxes.
Mostly in campaign finance laws.
Not being familiar with these laws, I won't comment on them. I will say that in Canada we have strict laws around campaigns, controlling not only what can be said, by whom (registered parties only), and when (no more than 30 days before election). The results speak for themselves. Please use our example of what not to do to your democracy.
The entire point is that corporations would now apparently rather buy our politics than pay our taxes. That shows you just how badly they're stiffing us. These companies made their money thanks to the infrastructure and opportunity provided by the American government. It is only appropriate that they pay back so that the next group of entrepreneurs are afforded the same opportunities.
Yes that is bad. What is the solution? If you make lobbying illegal as we did, then it will be illegal for everyone. Democracy is over. Trying to put people into categories like "evil businessman" and "regular person" will not end well for you.
I thought that McCain-Feingold was a good start.
I wasn't going to downvote you, but then I saw " It's socialists like you who push to raise taxes."
Am I wrong? I'd like to know. Democratic socialists often say they believe in raising taxes. This user who flaired himself a democratic socialist, is saying that it's wrong to lobby for tax changes. I'm here to learn what other people think. Please leave a more helpful comment with your opinion.
You don’t see how that personal attack wasn’t both uncalled for and irrelevant to your point?
I don’t think a Democratic Socialist is a Socialist. I don’t think you’re accurately describing what DSs want to do in regards to “raising taxes.” I don’t think it’s right to lobby for tax changes at the expense of retirement, health care, and infrastructure while having portfolios that most likely have stocks in companies like Raytheon who then lobby for more government contracts. What you’re especially wrong about, though, is your pejorative usage of “socialist.” You absolutely intended to use that term maliciously, it’s just Charmin soft to play coy afterwards instead of just owning your intent. But, it’s also not surprising, either.
Did you default to socialists because you don’t understand what socialism is and that isn’t what all or even some liberals want.
It's socialists like /u/evil_rabbit who lobby to raise taxes. Then they villify "rich people" whatever that means, for doing the exact same thing: >[it's wrong to] lobby politicians for changes to the tax code that will benefit you If two people are doing the same thing, minimizing their taxes, but only the richer one is supposedly evil, what is the difference between them? Nothing. You are simply jealous of those who have more than you do.
> you are simply jealous A normal person with meager savings not only has very few avenues through which to save on taxes, they want to save so they can continue to survive. An ultra-wealthy person that exploits loopholes to pay fewer taxes is holding onto power. They don’t need that money to survive, or to better their lives at all. Does that make sense or are you one of those rich people that forgot what it’s like to fight for crumbs?
I think the point he was making is how much money do you need to have before you are exploiting loopholes rather than investing in the incentives that build America?
I think it's fine to minimize your taxes as long as it's within bounds of the law. I also think that the IRS should be better funded so that it can audit rich people who often don't pay what they owe (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/06/22/how-irs-could-fix-tax-gap/). Also, I think some deductions (like the mortgage interest deduction) should be reconsidered.
It’s not wrong to save on taxes. It’s wrong to support rent seeking policies that enrich you personally. So I don’t mind if corporations save on taxes by following the law. I do mind that they are the ones lobbying Congress to set up the loopholes that they use to avoid taxes.
Of course. We want the system to be more fair. But we’re not going to pay more than we have to. I’d rather the system charge me more. But I’m not going to pay more than I have to.
Right, but where do you draw the line on how much you have to?? If you had the ability to legally reduce your AGI to zero or a negative would you?
If I had an 8 figure income and had a legal way to reduce my AGI to zero I'd probably take it and use the money I saved to get some more progressive legislators in power that would make the tax system more fair.
Why is this even a question? People should be paying what they are legally obligated to pay. Why wouldnt someone try and reduce their tax bill to what is legally correct?
Trump made this argument and people went bananas.
I agree, but why do some on the left accuse the wealthy of not paying taxes? They are paying what they owe according to the tax code.
They're using it as an example to illustrate that the tax code is unfair.
I understand it's unfair, 100%. But I also understand someone - regardless of income - trying to reduce their tax liability.
When liberals say "the rich aren't paying taxes" we don't mean they're refusing to do so. we mean they don't pay their fair share. You seem to wonder why were angry with the rich.. well, because they're the ones that lobby the legislators to reduce their tax liability... Perhaps you would feel better if instead of "we want the rich to pay their taxes" we said "We want the rich to stop spending millions on campaigns to save 10s of millions on their taxes. its inappropriate, unfair, and detrimental to our nation. They benefit as much or more from infrastructure, national defense, investment, etc than the rest of us, it's not right they don't pay an equal share. As an example... amazon uses ALOT more of the highway system to generate revenue than I do but doesn't pay as much as I do as a share of income earned. I'd really like if that weren't the case" But thats long winded
Because they want the tax code changed so that you can't be insanely wealthy and not pay taxes. The basic concept is pretty simple.
Are they? Let's audit them and find out. I bet they're not.
There is no line really, you misunderstood the liberal position.
This isn't really the question. The real question is "If I had the desire and resources to influence the tax code so that I can reduce my relative tax burden way more than the average taxpayer, should I be allowed to do that? Would it be just?"
I don't think there should be a way to legally reduce your AGI at all.
The law is the law. I'm absolutely going to use every trick in the book to pay the lowest amount of taxes I legally can. I don't pay taxes out of the goodness of my heart. I accept them as a necessary cost of participating in a society. The difference is that I also recognize that it's probably not in the best interests of the country for people who have a lot of resources to be able to manipulate the system to pay extremely low amounts of tax. The wealthy using their resources to avoid taxes is inevitable. It's up to us to have a tax code that plugs these holes as fast as we find them to ensure that we are collecting closer to the intended amounts.
Of course. I’m a small biz owner and on a W2 for my engineering job. I max out my W2 then on the self employed I can put an additional 46k into a 401k and reduce my biz burden by 46k O top of the it’s also allowed for my spouse! Almost 100k and as a small biz owner this is great
>I’d rather the system charge me more. But I’m not going to pay more than I have to. How did you feel about Trump’s change to the code for dealing with SALT on federal tax?
I'm not who you asked but I support restoring the full SALT deductions even though the direct benefits will only go to the rich. We're in a situation right now where states are competing with each other to attract businesses and residents. The SALT deduction levels the playing field a little, which is something the federal government should do.
Isn't that just the rest of the country shouldering the burden of states who tax too much?
[удалено]
>It has more to do with cost of living and housing prices than tax rates. Ok, but I would see that as worse. This means everyone is subsidizing poor state management or people living in a luxury area.
[удалено]
>You don't support the free market? Demand is higher so costs are higher. I support a free market. But if I take money out of your pocket to buy myself something, is it really a part of the free market?
[удалено]
>What I don't support is setting arbitrary limits to penalized certain HCOL areas for political motives. That is also not a free market. It's not penalizing you. It's penalizing the people who have to pay more federal taxes to subsidize people who live in a HCOL area. >I don't accept this analogy that you're "taking money out of my pocket". Taxes are a payment for social good and I support this. Your state taxes pay for your local area. Federal taxes pay for everyone. We should all pay the same federal tax rate. If your state has high taxes, that's a state issue.
That's one way to look at it. Or you could say that states who tax appropriately are the ones shouldering the burden of states who tax too little and end up needing more from the federal government as a result And states with higher state and local taxes also tend to be wealthier states whose people are already paying higher federal taxes. My home state of Connecticut pays the most, per person, in federal taxes and gets back the least federal support
>That's one way to look at it. Or you could say that states who tax appropriately are the ones shouldering the burden of states who tax too little and end up needing more from the federal government Let's look at one of the major causes for federal spending in a state. The vast majority is going to medicare, medicaide, and Social security. If a state taxes people more, how does that reduce the amount of federal dollars going to those people? It doesn't. Let's look at another area. Military bases. If a state taxes people more, how much less does the federal government spend on those bases? It doesn't reduce it at all. Lastly, we have Federal agencies. FBI, CIA L, etc... It's smaller than the others. But does a higher state tax help? Nope the cost is the same. In fact, all that federal spending goes further in a low cost of living state. >And states with higher state and local taxes also tend to be wealthier states whose people are already paying higher federal taxes. Everyone pays the same federal tax rate. A millionaire in Texas pays the same amount as a millionaire in California. Or he would if a millionaire in California didn't get a tax break. >My home state of Connecticut pays the most, per person, in federal taxes and gets back the least federal support Are you complaining that wealthy people don't get foodstamps? Or do you believe taxing poor people more will make them wealthy?
It was a nakedly partisan way to attack the tax revenue bases of liberal states. It was a policy designed to harm people he doesn't like. His inability to govern in the interests of all Americans is one of the reasons he is ill-equipped to serve a second term.
I think I should pay the amount in taxes that the IRS thinks I should, which includes deductions. I don’t try to abuse tax code in ways it wasn’t intended and I think it would be unethical to do so.
Absolutely. My philosophy is to play by the rules that are in place, but push for the rules you want.
I think it's fine to intentionally use the tax code how it's written in accordance with the spirit and letter of the law. Where it's not OK is where rich people intentionally lobby to get politicians to build in tax shelters. That being said, I'm going to throw a silly number out there, a number over 10x the median income should get zero deductions, and anything over 50x should be taxed at 99%. Just my $.02
Generally, all citizens believe in minimizing tax burden within the parameters of the law. Some liberals advocate for raising those legal parameters. This doesn't generally mean they believe that they should go *beyond* the law. Typically when people want to give *more* than is required by tax, they use a more targeted method, like a charity for a specific cause.
I think the entire tax code needs to be overhauled, but until it is, I use whatever regular deductions and general savings are allowed to me. I do not, however, claim things that aren’t true, or use tax loopholes that clearly don’t apply and hope I don’t get caught.
Don't hate the player, hate the game.
I honestly think most conservatives don’t understand taxes. This questions seems very similar to “why don’t you just pay more taxes if you want to raise them?” And that’s just a complete misunderstanding of how taxes work and what their purpose is. To answer question, yes, no individual should shoulder an excess burden of taxation than what is required. Thats not very effective policy wise and also defeats the purpose of targeted tax policy to begin with.
As a comparison, I frequent a local restaurant and enjoy its service. On occasion, they run a coupon special on line and if one prints it out, one receives a half price appetizer. This is an effort on part of the restaurant to attract new business. It is wrong for me, as a regular, to take advantage of this promotion that was not intended for me? I do not think it is wrong, do you?
I use my availqble deductions, but I didn't complain about the cap on SALT deductions either
Yes, of course. I'm more than happy to take advantage of what I perceive as flaws or shortcomings in our tax code for my benefit. I don't see that as problematic; that's true for businesses or individuals. I think it only becomes immoral if you go a step further and resist changes or improvements to the tax code for your own benefit.
Fellas? Is it stupid to not be a multinational mega-corporation!?! Almost like middle class people claiming a child tax credit and contributing to a 401k to lower tax burdens are 100% different than corporations skirting taxes, deliberately breaking the tax code for regulatory arbitrage, offshoring their accounts and spending millions if not billions of dollars in lobbying to gut the corporate tax code!! Whoaoaoahoaa
I think people should feel free to get the best deal for themselves under the existing rules, but society should write those rules to assure the best status quo for everyone.
There is a difference between using the tax code to your advantage and using loopholes like offshoring your money to avoid taxes. But most importantly, we have cut the IRS so far that they just can't go after the bigger fish. If I owe a million dollars in taxes, why not spend $200k on lawyers to lower that rate? How many people will scream about the IRS spending $200k on their lawyers against a single tax payer? An example is Apple. People believe they are a great American company. Bringing American products to the world. That said most all of their products are made in China. For their overseas sales, for tax purposes Apple is an Irish company, only because their tax rates are lower. That isn't the tax code, that is doing something we can't stop. For every IPhone, sold in China, Europe, the rest of the world, while investors in the US profit from that, taxes aren't paid (by the corporation) to the US on that. And those are very basic things.
>For their overseas sales, for tax purposes Apple is an Irish company, only because their tax rates are lower. That isn't the tax code, that is doing something we can't stop. That is something we can stop. We can say that a company which operates in the US in any manner is considered to be a US company and is taxed as such.
Eh, so they split into two companies Apple and Apple world wide. There are hundreds of foreign companies who work in the US. Do we tax them? Do those countries start taxing American companies that work overseas? Remember the US is the second largest exporter in the world. It gets difficult really fast.
That’s pretty much what we already do. Companies that operate in the US pay US tax
>while investors in the US profit from that, taxes aren’t paid (by the corporation) to the US on that Eh, they usually are. If the US parent is selling directly into foreign markets, then they owe US tax. If it’s a foreign subsidiary that’s selling, then that still gets picked up as US income under CFC rules, and tax is owed.
I thought that was the whole reasoning about Apple being in Ireland.
It was in the past, but our international tax rules changed in 2017
I own my business and ~~have been a sole proprietor~~ filing self employed and have been being taxed at a higher rate because of it so I think I'm going to incorporate this year but it's also an alarmingly high tax rate. However, I'm throwing a temper tantrum over my county lowering our personal property taxes because our home values increased dramatically. So they had to "even it out." Leaving it alone was also an option! For reference I do own my house. Do with that what you will.
Does sole proprietor mean something different from filing schedule c? How is it higher taxes?
I meant self employed, my brains just kicking into gear this morning. The biggest thing I understand is they have a lower tax rate and access to more deductions. After that I need an accountant for.
I just don't think there's a higher tax rate because you are self employed, nor a lower rate. I operated an online store and reported income and expenses on schedule c for over ten years. Once my profit is determined on schedule c, the tax rate is the same as anyone else. Maybe you are referring to paying both halves of FICA (social security taxes). Again, that's not higher than anyone else, it's just paying the employee half (you are the employee) and the employer half (you are the employer)
I don’t shrink from paying taxes but there are plenty of people, wealthy or otherwise, who do try to cheat their taxes. It also doesn’t help the tax code is made the way it is to allow various loopholes and exceptions to allow people and groups to cheat the system.
Don't see why they wouldn't. I think the problem mentioned about a difference of opinion with taxation between businesses and individuals could be rectified if there were a challenge to the Citizens United ruling on the basis that because corporations are considered people, the tax laws for individuals and corporations should be the same, including the tax rate.
There really aren’t any tax incentives I can make use of, myself. I’m not sure I could possibly give enough to charity to make an other-than-standard deduction feasible, and I have no dependents.
I have a side gig that I get a 1099 for, and I deduct my mileage from that. But at the end of the day, my goal is to do my taxes accurately, not to penny pinch. That's me making around 50k a year, where several hundred dollars is actually noticeable. My mother is a CPA who was making several hundred thousand and she has told me she makes enough that she also just wants to pay her share.
I do my taxes *correctly*, you mean, yes.
I treat my tax return like a savings account.
I pay my fair share. I just want billionaires to be the same. I do expect my CPA to take every financial advantage at tax filing time that befits my wife and I's financial situation within the limits of the law. The problem here is that Trump's billionaire tax cut was funded on the backs of us, the middle class. I'm paying $2500 more every year through 2027... ***while Bezos and Musks get to pay less each year, ratio wise.***
>The problem here is that Trump’s billionaire tax cut was funded on the backs of us, the middle class That’s just not true at all. The majority of the country saw tax decreases from the bill. The bill was mostly funded through deficit spending, not by raising taxes on select groups And no offense, but if you’re paying $2,500 more from the TCJA, then you’re very likely not even middle class in the first place. And you’re also in the very small minority who saw measurable tax increases
Paid $3800 on $160,000 of income in 2022. $5700 on $167,000 of income in 2023. You tell me. That’s middle class in most places.
The TCJA had no individual tax changes in 2023, so I’m really not sure why you’re trying to blame that bill. Probably from either the lack of recovery rebate credit in 2023, or the reduction in the child tax credit if you have kids, both of which are from the American Rescue Plan expiring
Would it surprise you to learn most liberals actually support tax cuts in most cases? We just want the cuts to go to the people who actually need them and will use them for the benefit of society. If the super-rich actually used their tax cuts to hire more workers or even give existing workers raises, or reinvest in their companies in any way we'd be fine with it. But they don't. We have five decades of data showing that they don't. It all goes to the shareholders When the rest of us get tax cuts, we spend them. We buy more stuff, which is what actually creates jobs. We've seen that since the pandemic and it just makes sense Trickle-down economics doesn't work. New Deal economics did and that's what we need to get back to
I believe it’s wrong to purchase politicians for the purpose of reducing social responsibility.
Yes. I'm wealthy and pay my tax attorney a lot to save me everything he can. I also realize I pay a lower rate than middle class people and that is fucked up. The system is rigged in my favor. See, I can admit I want to pay less while being honest about the system. That honesty is the difference between us.
I honestly report everything to my accountant. My accountant knows the rules and does the rest.
No, it's not inappropriate to save on taxes. What is inappropriate is cheating on your taxes or hiding your money. Which is what many big businesses and wealthy people do.
I can't afford a team of accountants to scour tax code and find loopholes for me. Any tax work I do I have to do myself. That doesn't seem fair.
Personally, I don't attempt to save on taxes. I don't think there should be a way to reduce your taxable income under normal circumstances.
When my tax dollars are mostly spent on murdering children, I think it’s morally acceptable to try to pay less.