America’s Unequal Economic Recovery

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
20,207
Reaction score
4,700
Points
113
And what if it didn't? The threshold is a pretty significant for the middle class.
People are still allowed to itemize. Most middle class are better off with the increased standard deduction over itemizing so they don't itemize. You presented losing the ability to itemize as a bad thing - it was a tax break for most middle class and even more helpful for anyone who couldn't afford to mortgage a home.
 

forever a gopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
1,811
Reaction score
939
Points
113
I’d have to do research on exactly what tax breaks are being used here, but at a high level I do disagree. I think we tax too much the way it is and it doesn’t anger me one little
bit when people or companies follow the law to reduce their taxes. I do the same with the investments I make - as does virtually everyone in the world. I simply don’t share the “get Richie”, “they don’t need that much”, “they won’t notice” jealousy approach so many do. I don’t even agree that higher incomes should have to pay a higher percentage in taxes.
I'm a big proponent of a flat tax or fair tax. Just get (mostly) rid of the IRS all together, and get rid of all the "loopholes". Everybody pays the same rate. To appease the lefties, you could say that the first $25k in income is exempt from taxes, and just applies to everybody, so no need for a tax return.
 

STPGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
6,309
Reaction score
710
Points
113
People are still allowed to itemize. Most middle class are better off with the increased standard deduction over itemizing so they don't itemize. You presented losing the ability to itemize as a bad thing - it was a tax break for most middle class and even more helpful for anyone who couldn't afford to mortgage a home.
I not necessarily saying it is good or bad. I'm just saying that it is one of many ways the top made out better.

I'm tapping out.

Cheers!
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
18,328
Reaction score
2,151
Points
113
I suspect what you consider "loopholes" would vary from what I consider "loopholes". Most things that reduce tax burden involve investments that help the economy.
Maybe, maybe not. But you are arguing for economic engineering, just to be clear. I am arguing for simplicity.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
54,837
Reaction score
11,719
Points
113
Don’t believe what Biden and Howie say….

Its (Amazon) federal income tax expense for 2019 was more than $1 billion, in addition to more than $2 billion in other types of federal taxes.

In February Amazon said its 2020 tax contributions included about $1.7 billion in federal income tax expense, and $1.8 billion in other federal taxes such as payroll taxes and customs duties. It also reported more than $2.6 billion in state and local taxes.

All businesses pay payroll taxes. That has zero to do with this discussion. The point is that Amazon paid little to no income tax despite being the largest company on earth. They didn't do anything illegal, as far as I know. The question is why don't we change the tax laws so that this can't happen.

Things like 100% bonus depreciation, which were meant as a temporary spending stimulus are now permanent. And large, growing companies can use this and other favorable adjustments to almost totally defer Federal taxes for an indefinite period. Many states don't allow this for this very reason.

Repealing this provision and the pass-through provision which caps passive income at 30% would go a long way.
 


howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
54,837
Reaction score
11,719
Points
113
I suspect what you consider "loopholes" would vary from what I consider "loopholes". Most things that reduce tax burden involve investments that help the economy.
They're almost all timing incentives and the $ that is spent would be spent anyway. Hurry up and buy that truck fleet in December for the tax write-off. Nevermind that you would have bought it by March anyway.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
54,837
Reaction score
11,719
Points
113
The increased standard deduction made itemizing unnecessary for most middle class families.
It also neutralized most of the benefit for middle class families. Especially since the personal exemption was also removed. Middle class families with 3 + kids could easily end up with higher taxable income than they had before.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
54,837
Reaction score
11,719
Points
113
I'm a big proponent of a flat tax or fair tax. Just get (mostly) rid of the IRS all together, and get rid of all the "loopholes". Everybody pays the same rate. To appease the lefties, you could say that the first $25k in income is exempt from taxes, and just applies to everybody, so no need for a tax return.
Steve Forbes for President!
 




Bob_Loblaw

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
13,340
Reaction score
2,912
Points
113
Scale. Try finding housing in Los Altos Hills, Ca. They tear down multi-million dollar houses just to put another up. Yes, some of it is earthquake related, but you get my point.
No. No one gets your point on this one.
 


Bob_Loblaw

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
13,340
Reaction score
2,912
Points
113
Try getting a loan for a multi-million dollar house on 100k income.
Yeah.

So now we need income to be so flat that everyone needs to afford multi-million dollar homes? I have a lot of sympathies for the working poor, I don't have much sympathy for people who cannot afford multi-million dollar homes.

Are you trying to imply that someone making $100K per year is bad off because mansions exist?
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
18,328
Reaction score
2,151
Points
113
Because rich people make other people rich. Income inequality is an atrocious thing to try to "fix", you should try to fix poverty.

Silicone Valley is full of people making $100K + per year because of all of the billionaires out there. There is a drastic difference between $10 million per year and $100K per year, but it's really difficult to argue that the person making $100K is being taken advantage of by the system.
If a person makes $100K in “Silicone Valley,” it’s because they have talents worth that much that someone is willing to pay them for. Period. It’s not a bunch of Robin Hoods handing out paychecks from their empires they built alone.
Absolutely, but the fact that person WILLING TO PAY THEM is a billionaire does not make it a bad situation.
Quote me, Bob.
I already did. You replied to what I quoted, dummy.
Where in here do I say having people who are billionaires "make it a bad situation?" Let's see the quote, dummy.
 



STPGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
6,309
Reaction score
710
Points
113
Yeah.

So now we need income to be so flat that everyone needs to afford multi-million dollar homes? I have a lot of sympathies for the working poor, I don't have much sympathy for people who cannot afford multi-million dollar homes.

Are you trying to imply that someone making $100K per year is bad off because mansions exist?
My initial point was scale. Even at that scale, 100K barely gets you housing.

BTW That 100K is high skilled labor (Jake's point?) that was the result of high cost education. That education opens up other cans of worms.

BTW II Those houses while large, are not mansions.
Cheers!
 

Bob_Loblaw

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
13,340
Reaction score
2,912
Points
113
My initial point was scale. Even at that scale, 100K barely gets you housing.

BTW That 100K is high skilled labor (Jake's point?) that was the result of high cost education. That education opens up other cans of worms.

BTW II Those houses while large, are not mansions.
Cheers!
$100K barely gets you multi-million dollar mansions. You can absolutely find and afford really nice housing in the Silicon Valley while making $100K. Luxury apartments in the area run about $2,500.

To your second non-point - - when did I ever say they weren't? My point is that a billionaire hiring people for $100K create income inequality (you know all of that "did you know the 1% talk?"). Income inequality has been fantastic for Silicon Valley.

A $2 million in Silicon Valley will get you a really nice house. A $3 million will get you a mansion in most neighborhoods. Now, you might not be able to live in the most premier neighborhoods (Palo Alto).
 

Bob_Loblaw

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
13,340
Reaction score
2,912
Points
113
Where in here do I say having people who are billionaires "make it a bad situation?" Let's see the quote, dummy.
You really are this dumb. Holy hell. I thought you were pretending but this is really who you are?!? It's kind of shocking.

Now you see that quote up there, I never said "I disagree with you", but it is easily inferred because I quoted what you said and then commented on it? I now know those types of inferences are over your head.

Person 1: Bananas are better for you than Apples
Person 2: (quoting person 1) Bananas are fully of sugar and have less fiber.
Person 1: Because of the amount of potassium, they are still better for you than apples.
Person 2: WHEN DID I SAY THEY WEREN'T. QUOTE ME. QUOTE ME. sniffles.

You see how Person 1 would have no option but to think Person 2 was disagreeing with his point. The inference (look it up) is that Person 2 thought Apples were healthier. This isn't that complicated.

So you either inferred that economic inequality was bad and are now skittishly running from your opinion; OR you're just quoting people and blurting things out that have nothing to do with the discussion. With your history of running away and being the boards resident pu$$y, I know which scenario I'd bet on. Then again, I might just be underestimating your stupidity again.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
19,971
Reaction score
2,930
Points
113
You really are this dumb. Holy hell. I thought you were pretending but this is really who you are?!? It's kind of shocking.

Now you see that quote up there, I never said "I disagree with you", but it is easily inferred because I quoted what you said and then commented on it? I now know those types of inferences are over your head.

Person 1: Bananas are better for you than Apples
Person 2: (quoting person 1) Bananas are fully of sugar and have less fiber.
Person 1: Because of the amount of potassium, they are still better for you than apples.
Person 2: WHEN DID I SAY THEY WEREN'T. QUOTE ME. QUOTE ME. sniffles.

You see how Person 1 would have no option but to think Person 2 was disagreeing with his point. The inference (look it up) is that Person 2 thought Apples were healthier. This isn't that complicated.

So you either inferred that economic inequality was bad and are now skittishly running from your opinion; OR you're just quoting people and blurting things out that have nothing to do with the discussion. With your history of running away and being the boards resident pu$$y, I know which scenario I'd bet on. Then again, I might just be underestimating your stupidity again.
Expect a 🤣 response. That’s the best way for Jake to run away.
 


Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
20,207
Reaction score
4,700
Points
113
All businesses pay payroll taxes. That has zero to do with this discussion. The point is that Amazon paid little to no income tax despite being the largest company on earth.
You keep repeating this. Last week you said they paid "no income tax" now it is "little to no income tax". It is right in my post. Over $1 Billion in Federal Income Tax in 2019. $1.7 Billion in Federal Income Tax 2020. You can argue that isn't enough - but stop saying "none" or "little to no". This isn't meant to be a riddle.
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
18,328
Reaction score
2,151
Points
113
You really are this dumb. Holy hell. I thought you were pretending but this is really who you are?!? It's kind of shocking.

Now you see that quote up there, I never said "I disagree with you", but it is easily inferred because I quoted what you said and then commented on it? I now know those types of inferences are over your head.

Person 1: Bananas are better for you than Apples
Person 2: (quoting person 1) Bananas are fully of sugar and have less fiber.
Person 1: Because of the amount of potassium, they are still better for you than apples.
Person 2: WHEN DID I SAY THEY WEREN'T. QUOTE ME. QUOTE ME. sniffles.

You see how Person 1 would have no option but to think Person 2 was disagreeing with his point. The inference (look it up) is that Person 2 thought Apples were healthier. This isn't that complicated.

So you either inferred that economic inequality was bad and are now skittishly running from your opinion; OR you're just quoting people and blurting things out that have nothing to do with the discussion. With your history of running away and being the boards resident pu$$y, I know which scenario I'd bet on. Then again, I might just be underestimating your stupidity again.
Great post.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
19,971
Reaction score
2,930
Points
113
You keep repeating this. Last week you said they paid "no income tax" now it is "little to no income tax". It is right in my post. Over $1 Billion in Federal Income Tax in 2019. $1.7 Billion in Federal Income Tax 2020. You can argue that isn't enough - but stop saying "none" or "little to no". This isn't meant to be a riddle.
(the response in howie’s head): Well that’s what they said on CNN…cuz Joe said so.
 

STPGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
6,309
Reaction score
710
Points
113
$100K barely gets you multi-million dollar mansions. You can absolutely find and afford really nice housing in the Silicon Valley while making $100K. Luxury apartments in the area run about $2,500.

To your second non-point - - when did I ever say they weren't? My point is that a billionaire hiring people for $100K create income inequality (you know all of that "did you know the 1% talk?"). Income inequality has been fantastic for Silicon Valley.

A $2 million in Silicon Valley will get you a really nice house. A $3 million will get you a mansion in most neighborhoods. Now, you might not be able to live in the most premier neighborhoods (Palo Alto).
 


howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
54,837
Reaction score
11,719
Points
113
You keep repeating this. Last week you said they paid "no income tax" now it is "little to no income tax". It is right in my post. Over $1 Billion in Federal Income Tax in 2019. $1.7 Billion in Federal Income Tax 2020. You can argue that isn't enough - but stop saying "none" or "little to no". This isn't meant to be a riddle.
Last year they paid 1.2%. In some years (2017) it appears they paid none. Amazon pays little-to-no federal income tax is an accurate statement. You pick the dumbest fights.

 

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
20,207
Reaction score
4,700
Points
113
Last year they paid 1.2%. In some years (2017) it appears they paid none. Amazon pays little-to-no federal income tax is an accurate statement. You pick the dumbest fights.

So Dishonest.
- Last week you said they paid zero. Proven WRONG
- Then you tell me you are talking about income tax and I'm not. Proven WRONG
- So, today your argument is that the $1.7 Billion dollars paid last year is "little to none." WRONG
 


howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
54,837
Reaction score
11,719
Points
113
So Dishonest.
- Last week you said they paid zero. Proven WRONG
- Then you tell me you are talking about income tax and I'm not. Proven WRONG
- So, today your argument is that the $1.7 Billion dollars paid last year is "little to none." WRONG
Yes, none is wrong, as they paid a tiny amount some years. I accept your correction.

$1.7 billion is 1.2%. That is a tiny %. You pay more than that. Little to none is not inaccurate.

I'm not blaming Amazon. I'm blaming Congress.
 


Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
20,207
Reaction score
4,700
Points
113
Yes, none is wrong, as they paid a tiny amount some years. I accept your correction.

$1.7 billion is 1.2%. That is a tiny %. You pay more than that. Little to none is not inaccurate.

I'm not blaming Amazon. I'm blaming Congress.
$1.7 Billion is tiny. Little to None. Why even bother?
 

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
20,207
Reaction score
4,700
Points
113
I don't even know what "DHB" is. And it's just you 3 mostly.
You literally have more posts than anyone in GH history. Many are dishonest. Many are hypocritical. Most are partisan BS based on no reality. Then, when you get called out repeatedly for your nonsense, the reason you come up with is that some strangers that don't even know you, and that you engage with on a message board, are "obsessed" with you. Man, you live in your own little world. DHB.
 




Top Bottom