Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 05-06-2023, 07:37 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,672 posts, read 45,282,238 times
Reputation: 13900

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by VA Yankee View Post
I completely comprehend it now tell me how you can give a pass to a millionaire for being able to write off business losses to negate their tax obligation yet complain that someone at the other end of the financial spectrum isn't "paying their fair share" as theirs is erased due to income level, deductions, and dependents?
Because when you have a loss, that wipes out any income you may have had. It's basic math. I'll give you an easy example to understand:

-15 + 11 = -4

Negative values aren't taxed.

 
Old 05-06-2023, 07:40 AM
 
Location: Boston
20,350 posts, read 9,226,346 times
Reputation: 19078
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo58 View Post
It’s bipartisan. Billionaires of both parties manage to avoid paying taxes. The difference is that Democrats want to do something about that, and Republicans don’t.
lmao ... no they don't, where's the Democratic Senate bill doing something about it, Democrats have been in charge there for 5 years.
 
Old 05-06-2023, 09:11 AM
 
Location: Where my bills arrive
19,338 posts, read 17,273,427 times
Reputation: 15644
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Because when you have a loss, that wipes out any income you may have had. It's basic math. I'll give you an easy example to understand:

-15 + 11 = -4

Negative values aren't taxed.
Then accept: income - dependents - total deductions = 0 tax obligation do you get it now.

But to use your example: Income - Big Loss = 0 income/taxes + investment income = potential tax obligation
 
Old 05-06-2023, 09:27 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,672 posts, read 45,282,238 times
Reputation: 13900
Quote:
Originally Posted by VA Yankee View Post
Then accept: income - dependents - total deductions = 0 tax obligation do you get it now.
That's already tax law. That's why 40.1% of US 1040 filers pay no Individual Federal Income Tax whatsoever. Here's a chart on how that plays out by income level. The dark bars represent the percentage of those paying no IFIT in each income group, and if you hover your curser over the bar it well tell you the exact percentage at that income level:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...-income-level/

Quote:
But to use your example: Income - Big Loss = 0 income/taxes + investment income = potential tax obligation
Nope. not when all added together is zero or a negative value. Zero or negative value = nothing to tax.
 
Old 05-06-2023, 10:00 AM
 
Location: King County, WA
16,009 posts, read 6,709,136 times
Reputation: 13534
The historical trend demonstrates that the Republicans aren't really interested in dealing with the deficit. At least they haven't since the 1980s. They just want to block the actions of the opposition party. Basically, politics as usual.
 
Old 05-06-2023, 10:41 AM
 
4,213 posts, read 4,219,089 times
Reputation: 2100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks View Post
Name calling doesn’t change reality. Trump and republicans exploded the debt under their watch
Maybe once you realizing they are the same, then you can stop picking side.
 
Old 05-06-2023, 12:08 PM
 
Location: Coastal Mid-Atlantic
6,767 posts, read 4,463,769 times
Reputation: 8426
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjshae View Post
The historical trend demonstrates that the Republicans aren't really interested in dealing with the deficit. At least they haven't since the 1980s. They just want to block the actions of the opposition party. Basically, politics as usual.

Its all revenge politics for them. Their cult leader lost, They're blinded with revenge.
 
Old 05-06-2023, 12:28 PM
 
Location: Knoxville, TN
12,317 posts, read 6,447,010 times
Reputation: 23857
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjshae View Post
The historical trend demonstrates that the Republicans aren't really interested in dealing with the deficit. At least they haven't since the 1980s. They just want to block the actions of the opposition party. Basically, politics as usual.
That is because "Rupublican" does not mean "conservative". Most Republicans are moderates with some liberals. There almost as few conservative Republicans in Congress as liberal Republicans.

Newt Gingrich was the last conservative Republican allowed to be Speaker of the House. The blue blood GOP establishment thought they needed Gingrich to oppose Clinton. They didn't like how far Gingrich went to oppose the New World Order. No conservative Republican has been allowed that much power by the country club GOP establishment ever since. The RINOs ins

It is quite impossible for a conservative Republican to ever be selected for Senate Majority Leader, as the Senate is nothing but a Millionaire's old Boy's Club.
 
Old 05-06-2023, 12:36 PM
 
Location: Northridge/Porter Ranch, Calif.
24,537 posts, read 33,436,334 times
Reputation: 7645
Quote:
Originally Posted by vegasrollingstone View Post
$6.7 trillion to be exact under the prior one-term administration!

In fact EVERY republican administration has increase the debt by cutting taxes for the wealthy. Then when the Dems get in office the Republican scream that we have "spending problem". We don't have a spending problem we have a taxation problem.
That myth really needs to die off. It was across the board tax cuts, not just for "the wealthy."


And we don't have a taxation problem, we have a spending problem. Government revenue increases after tax cuts.
 
Old 05-06-2023, 01:31 PM
 
14,185 posts, read 5,749,643 times
Reputation: 8798
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjshae View Post
The historical trend demonstrates that the Republicans aren't really interested in dealing with the deficit. At least they haven't since the 1980s.
Actually, not since the 1920s. Under Coolidge, the House and Senate were also Republican, and that was the last time a fully Republican US government reduced the size/cost of the overall federal government.

They have been entirely full of crap on that particular plank in their platform ever since. So roughly a century of governing in opposition to their platform.

Minor quibble. You were being nice by saying it's only been 40 years. It's been more like 100.
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:40 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top