Sir, you are wrong about this. For years, the IRS has used a mathematical formula software system that analyzes income tax returns and it produces “DIF” scores that basically tells them what returns, if audited, will produce the greatest amount of return to the government. Contrary to a lot of public opinion, there are good public servants in the IRS that want to do their job right and well. The problem is the Service is woefully underfunded and it’s difficult for them to attract the top talent across a broad base of the Service. Basically, we get what we pay for.
Baby boomers complaining about paying capital gains tax......
- Thread starter OG Goat Holder
- Start date
- Status
It’s amazing seeing the defense of a large irs and complex tax code. For a nation that is spending like a drunken sailor, which scenario would be best:
-make tax codes more and more complex and hire more agents with guns to go after people for more money
-OR simplify the codes so it’s easier to collect taxes which would require LESS workers sucking on the already strained govt teet.
It amazes me at the amount of people worried about the world we leave future generations but don’t give a 17 about the unsustainable amount of debt we’re leaving them. It’s like they want the system to fail.
Also, I’d love to see the amount of audits done on rich people vs poor/middle class people. I promise the audits and agents go harder after the latter group than the former. It’s all about easier fish since the rich have teams of people to fight for them whereas the rest of us don’t have those resources and are forced to do what the Man tells us.
Lastly, it’s pathetic at who we consider rich here in America. There’s a huge gap between the truly rich and those that are on the cusp of living a good life responsibly.
-make tax codes more and more complex and hire more agents with guns to go after people for more money
-OR simplify the codes so it’s easier to collect taxes which would require LESS workers sucking on the already strained govt teet.
It amazes me at the amount of people worried about the world we leave future generations but don’t give a 17 about the unsustainable amount of debt we’re leaving them. It’s like they want the system to fail.
Also, I’d love to see the amount of audits done on rich people vs poor/middle class people. I promise the audits and agents go harder after the latter group than the former. It’s all about easier fish since the rich have teams of people to fight for them whereas the rest of us don’t have those resources and are forced to do what the Man tells us.
Lastly, it’s pathetic at who we consider rich here in America. There’s a huge gap between the truly rich and those that are on the cusp of living a good life responsibly.
I haven't seen anyone defend a complex tax code. Essentially everyone in this thread wants it to be simpler. Thus, the current amount of IRS employees can probably handle it.
If you are wanting to cut government spending and reduce debt, there are MUCH, MUCH bigger bangs for your buck than trying to fire a few government workers in the IRS, who are just trying to earn a living and if anything, actually help the deficit by finding the tax cheats.
Of course. Owned 6 houses over the course of 20 years now. Done pretty well on all of them, but not 500K good, albeit I didn't stay in any of them more than 5 years. And if I did, I don't think I'd be bltching about the taxes owed, I think I'd be happy that my property value went up 500K plus.
I actually fell asleep to that movie last night.
This article and this whole conversation brings something into light that is never talked about.
Nipple piercings. Where do we all stand on this issue?
Nipple piercings. Where do we all stand on this issue?
It’s not AT ALL the same thing, especially if you are living in it yourself.
On real property, you have property taxes, insurance, heating/cooling, and, A HUGE EXPENSE, maintenance.
Does the government tax you yearly on a stock you own? Is there a way you can buy insurance on a stock if a company goes bankrupt? More importantly, does a bank require you to buy that insurance in order to finance the stock purchase? Are you paying a utility fee for all the stock that is bought and sold for that company?
those don't have to go together
Easier said than done. All those "complexities" in the tax code are tax CUTS for the people they affect. "Simplifying" the tax code means raising taxes on a LOT of people. What's your proposal?
It's not unsustainable.
This is correct. BUT, under Obama the IRS did staff up a branch to go after those richies with the teams of lawyers. It did not go well, mostly the IRS lost in court. Plus, the BS scandals served their purpose of getting the IRS to back down. Biden is attempting it again, not sure to what level of success yet. It goes without saying, Trump did not have the IRS going after rich tax cheats.
My definition of rich for a bit has been "can call their Congressman up on a whim, and they take the call".
if its paying dividends, then yes.
yes
for large loans to buy stock specifically, I think they do? Keep in mind, a mortgage gives a better rate than a personal loan because the house is collateral. If you are using stock as collateral on a loan, there absolutely will be conditions.
Lost me
Congrats, you found a loophole with 'stock' as far as annual property taxes, but you do get taxed if it makes money. But if you own a business, yes, you have those expenses. You also don't have the 500K shield on stocks, so there's that.
Property taxes are local, by the way.
Not too bad, right? It may be because I flipped to the Democrat side of the aisle on this issue.
You are providing a false choice based on misinformation. This is about the most dishonest way to phrase something.
1- You mention 'agents with guns' in a negative way. It has been clearly stated over and over that most hires would not be 'agents with guns' and instead, most would be on the customer service/office side.
2- Why are you afraid of 'agents with guns' when all they are is trained law enforcement who are being paid to enforce laws? Back the Blue...right?
3- I cant remember the last time I heard anyone advocate for more complex tax codes. Thats absurd to even mention.
4- Simplifying tax codes doesnt necessarily mean fewer IRS agents or employees because the Agency is short staffed as it is(well documented). So perhaps it would just result in there finally being the correct number of agents or employees.
5- I am amazed to see people, common folk and legislators, argue that hiring more people to enforce laws would mean they 'go after' hardworking tax payers. WT17? They 'go after' people that arent following laws. When did that become a bad thing? When did the right stop caring about laws being enforced? Its hilarious, really. I hear over and over about how the lack of law enforcement in cities is destroying our society, yet many in the same group are outraged over the idea of properly staffing an enforcement agency and ensuring people follow laws. Straight bonkers.
Govt is a person with a gun telling you what to do. Period.
I am guessing you think the scenario you stated is bad. If so, since police also have a gun and tell you want to do...do you not support the police? Do you want police forces to also be reduced? Do you want police to not enforce laws?
If your point wasnt to say you think its bad...what is your point?
Rankin Republican. There is simply no way to rationally discuss things with this type of person, similar to the activists who want to defund police.
I mean, if bolding the question I'm responding to isn't enough to help you follow along, I don't know how to help you. The IRS took several years to even apologize and agree to stop targeting conservatives in a consent decree and couldn't even make it two years without rejecting a non-profit's application because biblical teachings are associated with the republican party. Can you even imagine them rejecting an environmental group's non-profit application because climate change is associated with the democrat party? To ask the question is to answer it.
Is this an actual attempt at responding to my request and post?
And you wonder why republicans don't want to give them more money? There should be some things that are too important to make partisan. Military, tax collection, law enforcement, etc. Even hardcore partisans that are smart would realize it's a very short term gain with huge long term costs. Certainly some people are just ****** and it's about personal power and profit and not really about advancing partisan goals except to the extent it betters their position. The problem is all the true believes who basically make politics or certain political issues a substitute for religion and they are too dumb to look 5 minutes into the future.
I’m far far from a Republican. In fact, I’ve never voted for a Republican in my life.
Any government law is backed by force. That breaks down in a modern society to a gun. If you don’t pay your taxes…eventually you are forcibly taken into prison against your will. If you resist, you are getting the **** beat out of you, tased, or shot.
Those that have the biggest and best guns internationally rule. See the United States.
These are just basic facts. Any government action/law is, at its core, backed up by the use of force. IE, all governments in every country in the history of the world ruled by violence. The only differences are what, we as the people, sanction as appropriate force for noncompliance.
I don’t care if an IRS agent carries a gun, a pencil or a bazooka. They are already an enforcement weapon of the government. And, that’s a good thing, otherwise there will be no law and order.
What IS ridiculous, apparently from this thread, is that other people think they are entitled to take REPEATED chunks out of the same dollar someone else earned, just because someone else chose to
Invest that dollar instead of buying Mcd’s fries.
Not sure if this has changed recently, but at least in the past, the poor would get audited a disproportionate amount because of all the head of household and EITC fraud. It's not huge money per return but it's a huge hit rate so provides a good return on time invested and hopefully discourages some of the easiest and common fraud.
The real money is in people running personal expenses through businesses. That's just not something either party wants to go after I don't think because it's a political loser.
To the extent the rich don't get audited as much as you might expect/prefer, it's largely not because of the fight after the fact, it's because they vet their tax strategy before hand, (so outside of people engaged in outright intentional fraud, which certainly happens but it's less attractive when you already have the money to risk any prison time), focusing on those audits means the IRS is digging in for a fight that is likely going to end up being a test case if they can't reach some sort of settlement. When the IRS wins those cases, rich people will avoid that strategy and move to a new one. When they lose those cases, then rich people move to take advantage of that strategy. To the extent the legality of a stategy is ambiguous and avoided by the more risk averse, picking a fight on it and losing risks having a lot more people utilize the strategy going forward unless and until Congress makes a change.
This is simply not true. Everybody pays into the system, for government to regulate it.
I know of a company that invites certain high-achievers to be owners and buy into company stock. How you set it up at that point is up to you, but many of them set up S-corps or LLC, and then get to set their own salary. I think most set it much lower than their hourly rate, and treat the rest as dividend or whatever. That's one thing I've always wondered how you could make kosher, because you have a published hourly rate from the company, plus bonus (essentially the real dividend). Not sure how you get around that in taxes, but folks do it. I know it reduces the amount you have to pay the full SS tax on.
Then, on top of that, they'd write off all their vacations as team-building or what not, and of course, car mileage back and forth to work, whatever. Stretch, but I guess I could see this. But I'm pretty sure that's not how the set up is supposed to go.
When are you due to sell and buy your next home?
ETA: I would rather have high taxes to pay than not pay bc that means the value of the home went up, so we agree there. Question is whether capital gains tax with after tax dollars is a fair tax code. I'd say no.
When you take money that's already been taxed (from income) and then go invest it into something that grows in value, the gain is called capital gains and it's taxed (unless you're in a super low tax bracket) no matter the piece of property: house, stocks, business, equipment, collectibles, etc
I have a problem with taxing money that's already been taxed. It's the system we've had, so I'm used it, but there's definitely a philosophical argument to whether that is a fair system or not. The person investing the after tax dollars is the one taking the risk. Why should the government get a piece of that pie with no skin in the game?
ETA: They did create a vehicle for this called a Roth IRA, but there's lots of strings attached to it. Great tool, but still lots of red tape.
Really? I'm a CPA of 27 years. Listen slowly....the capital gain has never been taxed, only the initial investment. Get it? I
Let's say I invest $1 of after tax money. Then I sell for $2. I then pay tax on the $1 difference. So, you have never paid tax on that $1 gain, right? But you have on the initial $1 which is why only $1 is taxed upon sale.
I totally understand how capital gain works. Your cost basis will be removed from the transaction and you won't pay tax again on that dollar, but you pay tax on the gain where you took the risk. You could lose the money. Yes I know you can write that off, but that doesn't help from a cash flow perspective.
I think you are missing the point. Depending on how long you hold the real property (I’m not talking about stocks) that you are living in, you spent a ton of already taxed dollars to maintain your house. You are absolutely being taxed on all of those dollars multiple times as a result of investing those dollars in your property upkeep.
In addition, I would argue you ARE being taxed on that initial dollar again. That dollar should be tax free moving forward for my use. I earned it at some point doing something and was already taxed on it. The federal government is NOT going to tax me again on that dollar if I buy a bag of waffle fries, they are going to tax Chikfila off what they netted from the sale. Why are they taxing me again if I choose to invest instead of consume?
Going further to the extreme, If your great, great, great grandfather earned it and you inherited it, the government has already gotten their cut. That’s the biggest problem I have with the wealth redistribution garbage. The wealthy are wealthy for a reason. At some point, maybe it was 200 years ago, someone in that family line took a risk or had a great idea and it paid off. The FAMILY earned it. Nothing was ever given to them. The person who actually earned it could have blown their money on hookers and blow. They didn’t. They chose to continue to invest or whatever and created value that could sustain their family for centuries.
Every time I think this board can't get any dumber, some moron says something even dumber. The sad thing is it's just ignorance. If you ever broadened you horizons and did blow off a hooker, you wouldn't embarrass yourself saying stupid ****.**
When you inherit property, you get a step up in basis to fair market value, thereby avoiding the tax on his gains. Unless his estate is over $13 million under today's law. Inheriting capital gain property is one of today's largest tax advantages.
This is the case on most any capital investment outside deductible taxes and interest.
Haha, I think we are on the same wavelength cause we do the same thing.
“There is no possible way you could’ve amassed that much land in one generation. It’s time to redistribute.”
Oh ok. So now you gonna steal from a decayed corpse that’s been dead for 60 years?
They used to suck. A married couple now has a $26 million exemption. Y'all must have big farms.
You characterized spending money on hookers and blow as wasteful. You may be beyond enlightenment. Or maybe my stupid joke wasn't clear. I dunno.
- Status
Latest posts
-
Mississippi College sez No Mas to football…
- Latest: paindonthurt17
-
OT: Elvis tried to kill Obama- Latest: She Mate Me
Get unlimited access today.