Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This used to be taught in civics classes. I'm not sure how often it is taught anymore.
Is there a point at which using so many deductions and loopholes lowers your tax burden to a level that it represents "shirking" your duties as a taxpayer? I suspect this will be the central issue when Mitt finally relents and releases his tax returns. It sounds as if his 2009 returns will probably be the most damaging.
The right may have a bit of a problem with this issue. They're fond of stating that half the country "pays no taxes." Now, of course that's a patently false statement that doesn't even pass the giggle test, but there is an admirable principle underneath: We all should be expected to contribute to the maintenance of our various levels of government. Now, many of them argue we should all pay the same rate on our income taxes. If it turns out that Mitt, when you adjust for all the loopholes, deductions and tax havens, paid a disproportionately small percentage, it will be difficult for them to defend that, given their rhetoric regarding percentages in the past. If the debate casts his supporters in a libertarian light, which essentially holds that one should try every legal twist and turn possible to avoid paying taxes, I don't think it will benefit them politically.
no duty about it,taxes are theft and I encourage everyone to minimize their burden using all the loopholes they can find (that is the real duty)
Individuals spend their own earned money more wisely than unaccountable bureaucrats who get it by theft.
no duty about it,taxes are theft and I encourage everyone to minimize their burden using all the loopholes they can find (that is the real duty)
Individuals spend their own earned money more wisely than unaccountable bureaucrats who get it by theft.
Precisely. Please, please, please keep talking like that and encourage your leaders to spout that rhetoric, as well.
"I want it my way and screw all of you! Everybody else - you pay for all those roads and schools and programs I benefit from!"
That goes over so well with ordinary voters. It really does. Then, after that, start talking about Medicare vouchers and how we should welcome a government shutdown and how compromise is bad. After all, those things have worked so well for you in the past.
Precisely. Please, please, please keep talking like that and encourage your leaders to spout that rhetoric, as well.
"I want it my way and screw all of you! Everybody else - you pay for all those roads and schools and programs I benefit from!"
That goes over so well with ordinary voters. It really does. Then, after that, start talking about Medicare vouchers and how we should welcome a government shutdown and how compromise is bad. After all, those things have worked so well for you in the past.
So basically this was just a troll thread. The OP didn't really want to discuss either the duty to pay taxes or the federal government's duty to use that tax money wisely. Got it!
So basically this was just a troll thread. The OP didn't really want to discuss either the duty to pay taxes or the federal government's duty to use that tax money wisely. Got it!
No, sweeheart, this wasn't a "trolling" thread. (BTW, I'd like someone to point out a single thread here that isn't conceived to get some people riled up.) I really am interested in hearing what reasonable (all two of you) people here think is an acceptable use of deductions and loopholes. Is there not a point at which it constitutes abuse of the system and a shirking of your duties as an American?
This used to be taught in civics classes. I'm not sure how often it is taught anymore.
Is there a point at which using so many deductions and loopholes lowers your tax burden to a level that it represents "shirking" your duties as a taxpayer? I suspect this will be the central issue when Mitt finally relents and releases his tax returns. It sounds as if his 2009 returns will probably be the most damaging.
The right may have a bit of a problem with this issue. They're fond of stating that half the country "pays no taxes." Now, of course that's a patently false statement that doesn't even pass the giggle test, but there is an admirable principle underneath: We all should be expected to contribute to the maintenance of our various levels of government. Now, many of them argue we should all pay the same rate on our income taxes. If it turns out that Mitt, when you adjust for all the loopholes, deductions and tax havens, paid a disproportionately small percentage, it will be difficult for them to defend that, given their rhetoric regarding percentages in the past. If the debate casts his supporters in a libertarian light, which essentially holds that one should try every legal twist and turn possible to avoid paying taxes, I don't think it will benefit them politically.
I'm a registered Republican and I agree with much of this. Yes, everyone should contribute. I think most (reasonable) people can agree on that. The issue is how much and how do we make it "fair"? After all, some people (due to loop holes, deductions, etc) pay less than most would consider fair based on their income. Some people pay nothing (in regards to Federal tax) and sometimes even get more money back than they paid in. Neither one of those situations strike me as fair.
The problem with the left's message, IMO, is the constant "just tax the rich more". Yes, I do understand that they are the ones with the money, but I also think that those who aren't rich (based on the current 250K benchmark that seems to be in vogue) know that sooner or later the tax man is coming for them. The rich don't have enough money, even taxed at 100%, to carry this country. It just won't work. Everyone should have skin in the game. EVERYONE.
I'm not rich (at least by the current benchmark), but I'd be Ok with paying more taxes IF:
Everyone paid something and those at the highest level paid a bit more.
The government cut spending and balanced the budget. As it stands now, they tax more, then spend more and then guess what: "Just tax the rich more" is once again in play.
I'd even support a federal sales tax on goods other than food, clothing and necessities as long as 100% of it was used to pay down the deficit.
I doubt I'm the only Republican who feels this way. The unfortunate reality is that all people seem to hear are the crazies at the fringes of both the right and the left.
No, sweeheart, this wasn't a "trolling" thread. (BTW, I'd like someone to point out a single thread here that isn't conceived to get some people riled up.) I really am interested in hearing what reasonable (all two of you) people here think is an acceptable use of deductions and loopholes. Is there not a point at which it constitutes abuse of the system and a shirking of your duties as an American?
The acceptable use of loopholes and deductions is as many as the IRS auditor will let you get away with. Fine if you take exception with the existence of the loopholes, but don't blame the taxpayers for utilizing the tools that the IRS made available to them.
The acceptable use of loopholes and deductions is as many as the IRS auditor will let you get away with. Fine if you take exception with the existence of the loopholes, but don't blame the taxpayers for utilizing the tools that the IRS made available for them.
So, there are no moral obligations you should place upon yourself when filing your taxes? Maybe this analogy will work: I compete in a sport that bans certain chemical substances from being used. I don't use any of the banned substances, but I do use a substance that replicates those of the banned substances, but has yet to be banned. Would you say in that instance, since it isn't illegal, I should use those substances? In other words, if something is allowed, I should take advantage of it, regardless if it amount to an unfair advantage or it means someone else must carry a larger burden, in this case, an increased tax burden for generations down the line?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
