V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Ah, but you may recall from an earlier threat, ownership of anything can be considered “income.”
- Status
G
goofyjim
Guest
Ridiculous, unless the item is sold for a profit. Then there is income. But you determine that at the time of sale.Ah, but you may recall from an earlier threat, ownership of anything can be considered “income.”
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
As some have determined, “income” is a defined term.
Thus, if someone has savings and liquidates some of those savings to spend, that is not income.
Thus, if someone has savings and liquidates some of those savings to spend, that is not income.
M
mapleoak
Guest
And this amounts to leaching. You see, our present tax system is very flawed since it allows some to not have to pay tax yet benefit from the government services provided and paid for by others.
Standard deductions make absolutely no sense, for anybody.
Actually that is not what I said. I simply pointed out that someone making no income, would not be taxed, except as iamrefreshed pointed out if he owns real-estate, he would pay property tax. He would still enjoy the same benefits that everyone else who pays for them gets. He may even get a tax refund without having paid any tax.
G
goofyjim
Guest
That’s why I propose doing away with the tax code. No credits or deductions for anyone for any reason. A flat percent of income. That is paying a fair share. For those who have no income then you fall back ona property tax but only if they manage to get by on no income, which is pretty difficult to do unless you have amassed so much cash at home that you can spend it forever without investing it somewhere. Ain’t too many who have reached that point.
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
Everybody’s situation is different and varies from person to person and from time to time.
One year someone may have a moderate income and pay a “normal” amount of taxes. The next year he (or she) may work a lot of overtime and get a lot of overtime pay and also collect a huge bonus … and pay a huge amount of taxes.
The following year, if their company gets acquired and they get let go, then they may have zero income, pay no taxes and have to get by by drawing on their savings.
So, just because someone doesn’t pay taxes doesn’t mean they aren’t (or haven’t been) carrying their fair share of the load.
One year someone may have a moderate income and pay a “normal” amount of taxes. The next year he (or she) may work a lot of overtime and get a lot of overtime pay and also collect a huge bonus … and pay a huge amount of taxes.
The following year, if their company gets acquired and they get let go, then they may have zero income, pay no taxes and have to get by by drawing on their savings.
So, just because someone doesn’t pay taxes doesn’t mean they aren’t (or haven’t been) carrying their fair share of the load.
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
Unless of course, you liquidate your savings from an IRA, in which case the government does consider it income.
M
mapleoak
Guest
This would be true in many cases though It doesn’t account for the countless many who do not contribute in any way and take advantage of all the handouts they can get as their way of life.
M
mapleoak
Guest
Excepting that this is (correct me if I am wrong) deferred income or income that hasn’t been previously taxed.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Our resident economist said home ownership is income, and posted a cite, written in impenetrable bureaucratic gibberish, which may have said the same thing (no on could actually parse any of the sentences.)
In continued discussions, we explored this – I said if a home is “income” then a pair of shoes are “income.” He half-way agreed.
The theory appears to be that if you own your home or shoes, then you don’t have to buy a home or shoes, and therefore you don’t have to spend money to pay for a home or shoes, and have more money and that’s “income.”
And taxpayers paid for this study.
M
mapleoak
Guest
And of course the people who skated their way out of paying taxes didn’t.The theory appears to be that if you own your home or shoes, then you don’t have to buy a home or shoes, and therefore you don’t have to spend money to pay for a home or shoes, and have more money and that’s “income.”
And taxpayers paid for this study.
G
goofyjim
Guest
These are considered assets not income. They are the goods someone else has parted with to achieve their income. Once they are yours they cannot be considered income.Our resident economist said home ownership is income, and posted a cite, written in impenetrable bureaucratic gibberish, which may have said the same thing (no on could actually parse any of the sentences.)
In continued discussions, we explored this – I said if a home is “income” then a pair of shoes are “income.” He half-way agreed.
The theory appears to be that if you own your home or shoes, then you don’t have to buy a home or shoes, and therefore you don’t have to spend money to pay for a home or shoes, and have more money and that’s “income.”
And taxpayers paid for this study.
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
The idea of skating assumes that someone has an affirmative obligation to pay taxes. The church says no such thing, it leaves the issue up to the government. The government says nobody has an obligation to pay more taxes than they legally owe.And of course the people who skated their way out of paying taxes didn’t.
If it is immoral to avoid taxes by not working, why is not immoral to avoid taxes by giving the money away?
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
Like I said, “income” is a defined term.
Some years ago, I got into a discussion of amortization and depreciation and all that … cash flow, revenues, expenses, and etc.
So I asked,“OK, so, what is the definition of the payments a company makes to pay off a loan that they used to buy, for example, a piece of equipment?”
And they said, “Wellll, that would be a ‘cash non-cost’.”
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
Sometimes, these discussions bring one face to face with issues such as “capitalism” versus “socialism” [or some other “isms”].
So for example, on one hand, all the money belongs to the peope and the government takes some for its purposes.
On the other hand, all money belongs to the government and the government lets you keep some.
E
estesbob
Guest
OK-so my say firm received a million dollars in payments for goods and services. Is that what i am taxed on?
E
estesbob
Guest
And if you liquidate it before you are 59 1/2 you get to pay (in most cases) and additional 10% penalty on top of your taxes.
M
mapleoak
Guest
And the socialism part is where money is taken from those who contribute and redistributed either in the form of money, goods, or public services to those who do not contribute.
M
mapleoak
Guest
So that’s like ‘super income’ or something.
E
estesbob
Guest
What I tell my clients is dont put any money in an IRA that you feel you might need at some point. If a taxpayer is in the 25% brakcet if they pull the money out premature they will pay 25% federal tax, a 10% penalty and say 4.5% state tax-a combined rate almost 40%. I tell them its cheaper to borrow the money from the local loan shark at excessive interest rates. True he can break your legs but hopefully he only does it once…
- Status