House votes to revoke IRS funding for 87,000 new agents.

[BackAgain]

The refund was for the 2019 tax year. The profits were from 2019. WTF are you talking about?

Wrong again, Dildo. The refund was from taxes paid the prior tax year. You don’t get a refund in the tax year taxes were paid. You file your tax returns the next year.

In any case, if the ridiculous tax laws allow for a refund for taxes paid even in a year you earn a big income (or profit), then that’s the law, rules and regulations. Until those laws are changed, there is not a damn thing wrong with taking advantage of the way they are written.

It isn’t done in secret, Dildo. You submit them to the ******* IRS. Why would they approve it if it’s illegal or improper or mistaken?

 

[Billo_Really]

So, people who, in year 1, pay taxes but also qualify for a refund shouldn’t get their refund in year two just because they made more money in year two?

You’re demented.

Will you stop trying to spin this conversation into something it isn't. If you make a profit, you have to pay taxes on that profit, not get a refund!

 

[Billo_Really]

Wrong again, Dildo. The refund was from taxes paid the prior tax year. You don’t get a refund in the tax year taxes were paid. You file your tax returns the next year.

In any case, if the ridiculous tax laws allow for a refund for taxes paid even in a year you earn a big income (or profit), then that’s the law, rules and regulations. Until those laws are changed, there is not a damn thing wrong with taking advantage of the way they are written.

It isn’t done in secret, Dildo. You submit them to the ******* IRS. Why would they approve it if it’s illegal or improper or mistaken?

You are so FOS! The current tax laws do not allow a refund when you make a profit. And I'm not talking about separate years.

 

[BackAgain]

Will you stop trying to spin this conversation into something it isn't. If you make a profit, you have to pay taxes on that profit, not get a refund!

I’m trying to stop your mindless spin.

If you are entitled to tax credits etc even on the year you make profits and yih can legally write-off certain costs, etc., then the math controls. Not your wishful thinking.

Even if you believe that making a profit “should” foreclose you from getting any refund, you need to face reality. Your wishful thinking and beliefs don’t control. The tax law, rules and regulations control.

Are they fucked up? You bet the are. So the answer to you complaint remains the same: change the tax laws. Until then, you can’t really complain when companies make use of the laws and rules and regs as written.

 

[otto105]

same reason obozo added 11 trillion to our debt. Because they can.

President Obama added what?

 

[Billo_Really]

I’m trying to stop your mindless spin.

If you are entitled to tax credits etc even on the year you make profits and yih can legally write-off certain costs, etc., then the math controls. Not your wishful thinking.

Even if you believe that making a profit “should” foreclose you from getting any refund, you need to face reality. Your wishful thinking and beliefs don’t control. The tax law, rules and regulations control.

Are they fucked up? You bet the are. So the answer to you complaint remains the same: change the tax laws. Until then, you can’t really complain when companies make use of the laws and rules and regs as written.

I can agree with that.

 

[Winston]

he won't answer because he doesn't know the difference between deficit and debt.

President Trump took office in 2017. By the end of his term four years later, he was estimated to hold $6.6 trillion in deficits

U.S. Budget Deficit by President

Here are the budget deficits for each president back to Woodrow Wilson. Obama had the highest dollar increase, but Wilson had the biggest percentage rise.

www.thebalancemoney.com

Trump increased DEFICITS by almost seven trillion dollars. Which increased the debt. Our debt is still growing, but Biden has actually decreased the deficit.

 

[BackAgain]

I can agree with that.

That’s a start. And I’ll follow up with this:

Seriously, wouldn’t the repair of such “loopholes” be met with massive resistance? For instance: If you try to “repair” a “loophole” where homeowners don’t have to pay taxes on the proceeds of the sale of their homes, wouldn’t that cause a massive outrage amongst the people?

That said, many of the other alleged “loopholes” which benefit those evil “wealthy” people will also be met with massive resistance.

Everything is likely to get mired down with those kind of problems. So, why not think outside of the box? Let’s re-think everything about funding our Federal government.

Serious proposal. START with eliminating our current IRS. AS PART OF THAT, revoke the US Tax Code and, concomitantly, nullify every IRS tax regulation and rule.

Have the law go into effect the next year or two years later.

But, of course, we’d now need to replace our method of funding our federal government. It might be a national sales tax. Or user tax. It might be a ******* flat tax (let’s just jettison the socialist notion of a “progressive” tax).

Also, it would make sense to rein in our spending by requiring that all budgets be balanced. We’d then know in advance how much money the gubmint “needs.” The flat tax rate could then be determined with mathematical precision. OR just figure out the budget based entirely on the projected revenue from a flat tax and apportion it accordingly.

All of this would demand a serious public discussion about our spending priorities and the consequences of every dollar spent or not spent.

That latter facet sounds very hard. I expect it would be. But that’s no reason not to get down to it.

 

[Winston]

I’m trying to stop your mindless spin.

If you are entitled to tax credits etc even on the year you make profits and yih can legally write-off certain costs, etc., then the math controls. Not your wishful thinking.

Even if you believe that making a profit “should” foreclose you from getting any refund, you need to face reality. Your wishful thinking and beliefs don’t control. The tax law, rules and regulations control.

Are they fucked up? You bet the are. So the answer to you complaint remains the same: change the tax laws. Until then, you can’t really complain when companies make use of the laws and rules and regs as written.

I think both of you are out of your league here. I mean first you have to understand the meaning of the word "refund". Then you might to examine the definition of "profit", and neither one of you seem to understand the concept of EBITA.

First, "refund"-the very meaning of the word means the return of money paid, or in the case of taxes, the difference between your calculated tax liability and taxes paid and tax credits received. Some tax credits are refundable, some or not. This is all spelled out pretty clearly on the 1040.

Then there is profit. Profit is the difference between the cost of a product, including production, delivery, and service required to complete a sale and the amount received for the product. Can you make a profit but not have a taxable income? Of course, that is where EBITA comes in, earnings before taxes and amortization. Depreciation, which is not a "cost" when calculating profit, is deducted from EBITA when calculating tax liability.

 

[BackAgain]

I think both of you are out of your league here. I mean first you have to understand the meaning of the word "refund". Then you might to examine the definition of "profit", and neither one of you seem to understand the concept of EBITA.

First, "refund"-the very meaning of the word means the return of money paid, or in the case of taxes, the difference between your calculated tax liability and taxes paid and tax credits received. Some tax credits are refundable, some or not. This is all spelled out pretty clearly on the 1040.

Then there is profit. Profit is the difference between the cost of a product, including production, delivery, and service required to complete a sale and the amount received for the product. Can you make a profit but not have a taxable income? Of course, that is where EBITA comes in, earnings before taxes and amortization. Depreciation, which is not a "cost" when calculating profit, is deducted from EBITA when calculating tax liability.

I think you’re a narcissistic preening gasbag. What you need to grasp, possibly for the first time in your life, is that our problems emanate from tools like you.

We all know what a refund is. Your superciliousness isn’t required.

But more fundamentally, your underlying assumption is the very problem itself. You assume we need to continue with 1040’s and exemptions and deductions and incentives and distinguishing between capital gains and other gains, etc. That assumption necessarily means that you’ve accepted business as usual.

That’s why you’re out of your depth, Winnie.

This entire quagmire is a direct and an indirect set of results of carrying-on with “business as usual.” It doesn’t work. It will never work. Or, it may work, but only in the dysfunctional manner we live with.

We need the full blown sea change. The way we contemplate “economics” is actually a reflection of our political philosophy. Since it comes about due to politics, it is subject to correction in the same manner.

 

[Winston]

I think you’re a narcissistic preening gasbag. What you need to grasp, possibly for the first time in your life, is that our problems emanate from tools like you.

We all know what a refund is. Your superciliousness isn’t required.

But more fundamentally, your underlying assumption is the very problem itself. You assume we need to continue with 1040’s and exemptions and deductions and incentives and distinguishing between capital gains and other gains, etc. That assumption necessarily means that you’ve accepted business as usual.

That’s why you’re out of your depth, Winnie.

This entire quagmire is a direct and an indirect set of results of carrying-on with “business as usual.” It doesn’t work. It will never work. Or, it may work, but only in the dysfunctional manner we live with.

We need the full blown sea change. The way we contemplate “economics” is actually a reflection of our political philosophy. Since it comes about due to politics, it is subject to correction in the same manner.

I will agree that there are inherent problems within our tax code, but your solutions only exacerbate the problem. And no real economist, or even a student of economics, would suggest requiring a balanced budget. Just because the government doesn't currently effectively use the Macroeconomic tool that is deficit spending doesn't mean we need to take that tool away.

A progressive tax system is fundamental to the perpetuation of a functioning democracy. Our problem is we don't have an effective progressive tax system. While the poor pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than the middle class, and the wealthy sometimes pay a higher percentage than the middle class, the uber-wealthy pay a lower percentage. And that is on a national level. At the state level, every single state has a regressive, not a progressive, tax system.

First, there should be no distinction between earned and unearned income. Second, the cap on income subject to the Social Security tax should be eliminated. Third, eliminate all tax loopholes. The mortgage interest deduction first and foremost. They do nothing more than produce an ineffective allocation of resources.

Tax forms should be one page long. A certain percent for the first dollars of income, a higher percentage on the next level, and perhaps two or three additional, increasing levels after that. That is a "fair" tax because as incomes increase households utilize an increasing amount of government.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Then get the **** out. Move to ******* Somalia, I mean it takes the biggest piece of shit in the world to condemn the nation that provides them with damn near everything. What happens when the money in your bank account is suddenly gone? What about all those evil terrorists in the Middle East that are just itching to come over here and **** with you? What about the shipping lanes that you depend on to get your cheap ass clothes from Vietnam? Even the internet, which God damn forbid, you have the ability to post on--what would it be without the federal government. Hell, your damn water, the air you breath

Post up numbers that refute my numbers or STFU.

No one can get away from taxation, sales tax is a prime example.

But everyone is responsible for themselves, and those that take the effort to absorb the tax rules, they're the ones that pay little to no taxation on income. I'm UK based, I've paid next to nothing on my income for 18 years. How? When I went self employed, I went Limited Company as opposed to just sole trader and thus follow the tax rules.

The more tax someone pays on their income, the more stupid they are. I assume you pay a lot in income tax?

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

"Elections have consequences." - Anonymous muzzie lawn jockey, circa 2009

Zero consequences here idiot..just RW Kabuki.

Just when do you anticipate the Senate passing this bill?

Too funny~

 

[notmyfault2020]

The House with its GOP majority is at work already.

JUST IN: House Republicans Vote Unanimously to Repeal Funding For Army of 87,000 IRS Agents (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

The House of Representatives on Monday evening voted 221-210 to repeal funding for 87,000 IRS agents.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

This may not alone end the prior authorization for such spending. But it’s a great start.

Technically, there is a punctuation error: The word "Representative's" should have the apostrophe after, not before the S (that makes the word plural).

But who cares? I onlly care when the dimrats make mistakes



Hey, at least I admit it... eh?

In any case, so far so good on having McCarthy as Speaker

Since I can't watch news all the time, I missed a lot of things he did. I found out recently tht he was one of the people in Congress who questioned (wanted an audit?) the 2020 election "results" so called.

 

[notmyfault2020]

Your moron Republicans ain't been at it a week and already bumped the deficit by a 100 billion dollars.

accusations w/o evidence provided

In other words: typical liberal BS

now run along, Cultist

 

[BackAgain]

I will agree that there are inherent problems within our tax code, but your solutions only exacerbate the problem.

I wasn’t even offering solutions. I was offering the rough outline for beginning. And, in any case, if we scuttle our current process entirely and start afresh within say two or so years of the new laws, that wouldn’t exacerbate any problems. It would help alleviate them.

And no real economist, or even a student of economics, would suggest requiring a balanced budget.

That’s not true.

Just because the government doesn't currently effectively use the Macroeconomic tool that is deficit spending doesn't mean we need to take that tool away.

I’d agree that there may be a value in federal debt — to some extent under certain circumstances. But that doesn’t mean it ought to be the norm.

A progressive tax system is fundamental to the perpetuation of a functioning democracy.

Absolutely false.

Our problem is we don't have an effective progressive tax system.

No. Our problem is that we adopted a progressive tax “system” at all: and riddled our budgetary foundation with so many exceptions and exemptions and similar technical “loopholes” that our tax law, rules and regulations are a monstrous 72,000 + pages of often indecipherable and even contradictory gibberish.

While the poor pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than the middle class, and the wealthy sometimes pay a higher percentage than the middle class, the uber-wealthy pay a lower percentage.

So what? We don’t tax wealth. Nor should we. We supposedly tax income. In a (hypothetical) flat tax system, the very wealthy may not pay as much as we could expect because they aren’t earning income. The poor would pay relatively little because 10% of a smaller number is obviously less than 10% of a larger number. The folks in between would end up still paying more than their fair share, but yet less than in this convicted idiotic system we currently have.

And that is on a national level. At the state level, every single state has a regressive, not a progressive, tax system.

I was addressing the onky federal level.

First, there should be no distinction between earned and unearned income.

Of course there should as things currently stand. Why? Because we don’t tax wealth.

Second, the cap on income subject to the Social Security tax should be eliminated.

That’s a matter for a very much separate debate. And it is debatable even standing alone.

Third, eliminate all tax loopholes.

As a general rule, under our current system, the word “loophole” is so broad as to be almost meaningless.

The mortgage interest deduction first and foremost.

In the current system, that impacts only those who can afford a home in the first place. It would raise holy hell to try to eliminate it. Although it is certainly an example of a so-called “loophole.”

They do nothing more than produce an ineffective allocation of resources.

No. They provide some measure of relief for the vagueness of home ownership and mortgage interest rates etc. Plus, it is one of the few “loopholes” most people would favor.

Tax forms should be one page long.

Absolutely.

A certain percent for the first dollars of income, a higher percentage on the next level, and perhaps two or three additional, increasing levels after that.

Nope. You’re just back to “progressive” taxation which is plainly just unfair.

That is a "fair" tax because as incomes increase households utilize an increasing amount of government.

That’s a weak argument. We all use the same roads. We all get the same municipal water supply services and sanitation services and police and fire protection, etc. (at least within our own localities).
In fact, even in terms of what we supposedly “get” from the Federal government, that too is pretty equally distributed.

(I have come up with a more rational and logical basis in favor of a so-called “progressive” taxation system. But it is a story for another day. I’ll just note that although I fundamentally otherwise disagree with a “progressive” tax, I could compromise on that point to a limited extent.)

 

[BackAgain]

Technically, there is a punctuation error: The word "Representative's" should have the apostrophe after, not before the S (that makes the word plural).

But who cares? I onlly care when the dimrats make mistakes



Hey, at least I admit it... eh?

In any case, so far so good on having McCarthy as Speaker

Since I can't watch news all the time, I missed a lot of things he did. I found out recently tht he was one of the people in Congress who questioned (wanted an audit?) the 2020 election "results" so called.

Where is this punctuation error?

Also, “that” is properly spelled with an “a.”

 

[Winston]

accusations w/o evidence provided

In other words: typical liberal BS

now run along, Cultist

If you would pull your head out of your ass you could see that I posted the CBO's scoring of the net benefit of those IRS agents early in this thread, an increase in revenue over the cost of those agents of a hundred billion dollars over ten years.

 

[Winston]

I wasn’t even offering solutions. I was offering the rough outline for beginning. And, in any case, if we scuttle our current process entirely and start afresh within say two or so years of the new laws, that wouldn’t exacerbate any problems. It would help alleviate them.

That’s not true.

I’d agree that there may be a value in federal debt — to some extent under certain circumstances. But that doesn’t mean it ought to be the norm.

Absolutely false.

No. Our problem is that we adopted a progressive tax “system” at all: and riddled our budgetary foundation with so many exceptions and exemptions and similar technical “loopholes” that our tax law, rules and regulations are a monstrous 72,000 + pages of often indecipherable and even contradictory gibberish.

So what? We don’t tax wealth. Nor should we. We supposedly tax income. In a (hypothetical) flat tax system, the very wealthy may not pay as much as we could expect because they aren’t earning income. The poor would pay relatively little because 10% of a smaller number is obviously less than 10% of a larger number. The folks in between would end up still paying more than their fair share, but yet less than in this convicted idiotic system we currently have.

I was addressing the onky federal level.

Of course there should as things currently stand. Why? Because we don’t tax wealth.

That’s a matter for a very much separate debate. And it is debatable even standing alone.

As a general rule, under our current system, the word “loophole” is so broad as to be almost meaningless.

In the current system, that impacts only those who can afford a home in the first place. It would raise holy hell to try to eliminate it. Although it is certainly an example of a so-called “loophole.”

No. They provide some measure of relief for the vagueness of home ownership and mortgage interest rates etc. Plus, it is one of the few “loopholes” most people would favor.

Absolutely.

Nope. You’re just back to “progressive” taxation which is plainly just unfair.

That’s a weak argument. We all use the same roads. We all get the same municipal water supply services and sanitation services and police and fire protection, etc. (at least within our own localities).
In fact, even in terms of what we supposedly “get” from the Federal government, that too is pretty equally distributed.

(I have come up with a more rational and logical basis in favor of a so-called “progressive” taxation system. But it is a story for another day. I’ll just note that although I fundamentally otherwise disagree with a “progressive” tax, I could compromise on that point to a limited extent.)

The Mortgage Interest Deduction Should Be on the Table | Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget

2017-10-30-As efforts for tax reform continue, there will be plenty of discussion about which tax breaks should be retained and which should be reduced or eliminated.

www.crfb.org

Constitutional Balanced Budget Amendment Poses Serious Risks | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

A balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution would be an unusual and economically dangerous way to address the nation’s long-term fiscal problems. It would threaten significant economic...

www.cbpp.org

More Progressive Taxation Needed for Social Progress – IDEAs

Governments must innovatively develop progressive means to finance the large-scale social spending needed to improve lives and livelihoods, especially following

www.networkideas.org

Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens | Perspectives on Politics | Cambridge Core

Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens - Volume 12 Issue 3

www.cambridge.org

 

[BackAgain]

The Mortgage Interest Deduction Should Be on the Table | Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget

2017-10-30-As efforts for tax reform continue, there will be plenty of discussion about which tax breaks should be retained and which should be reduced or eliminated.

www.crfb.org

Constitutional Balanced Budget Amendment Poses Serious Risks | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

A balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution would be an unusual and economically dangerous way to address the nation’s long-term fiscal problems. It would threaten significant economic...

www.cbpp.org

More Progressive Taxation Needed for Social Progress – IDEAs

Governments must innovatively develop progressive means to finance the large-scale social spending needed to improve lives and livelihoods, especially following

www.networkideas.org

Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens | Perspectives on Politics | Cambridge Core

Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens - Volume 12 Issue 3

www.cambridge.org

Articles unread, I deny them.

We achieve progress when we encourage and promote capitalism. (I happen to accept some regulation as necessary; but that’s just a side note). Progressivism is not about progress. It is inherently regressive and tragically illogical.