The Big Giant Tax Cut?

[OnePercenter]

Middle-class spending creates the need for jobs.

No employer is going to pay more than they have too unless it makes financial sense, barring of course construction of a Maui vacation home.

No it doesn't, you libs keep telling us the middle class is broke and in dire straights due to income stagnation and inequality? Okay so how's the economy growing then if they have no money? Pointing out the left's contradictions is a full time job.

>7 million Americans are working a second/third job to make ends meet. Credit card spending is up. Roommate connections are up.

30% of Californian's have to spend 50% of their income just on rent and 50% can't afford to purchase a home. Want to build a new home in California, liberals whack you $100,000 in "impact fees". 40% of the cost of building a new home is fees from the 45 California regulatory agencies. California the poster child for what a liberal United States would look like.

You're trying to bullshit a real estate investor?

The truth is that 'liberal' Florida has more communities that have impact fees than California.

Don't believe me? Look it up: Home – ImpactFees.com

This was national news earlier this week

Florida has more impact fees than California?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

From what I see the group of people most at risk of getting slammed with a big tax increase are single filers earning over $157k who live in high tax blue states who purchased expensive homes.

The deduction for state income and property taxes are capped at $10k total, combined. In some blue states the property taxes alone on a home will exceed that cap, meaning they will lose the deduction for property taxes over $10k plus the entire deduction for state income taxes.

That could be thousands of dollars. The standard deduction was increased to $12k for single filers but that won't help if they are paying $20k in state income and property taxes. Married couples have more hope of avoiding the pinch as they get a $24k standard deduction.

You've managed to avoid the question.

Sure I can do that math.

I asked for your numbers, not some bloviating bullshit.

You want me to post my personal financial information on the internet? Ah...hell no

I made $7.5M last year, with an official income of $1. I paid ZERO in federal personal income tax.

I paid ZERO in federal personal income tax

How many dollars did your "Trust" pay in taxes?

 

[OnePercenter]

California is a great place to live and do business. My business grew and life is great. Housing is an area problem. If you live out of the commute area for San Jose homes are cheap. Most work here starts at about $25 an hour or more. Consequently taxes are higher to pay for the infrastructure the state maintains and for the cities services as well as the counties.

Now taxing a tax is double dipping in most anyone's vocabulary. So to not be able to deduct property tax or state tax is a double tax on earnings. That was why they were excluded to begin with. Kinda like business license fees or building permit fees are deductible Same with vehicle depreciation and off road use tax credit.

Not for long, after Trump signs this tax bill California is going to need a bunch of UHaul trailers.

Screwing the middle class makes you happy?

Sorry but Californian's will now have to pay their fair share of Federal income taxes, no more tax loopholes for you.

While I own property in California, my official residency is Nevada. All of my six properties are corporate owned so the Trump tax plan doesn't effect/affect them in any way. ONLY middle-class gets screwed.

 

[usmbguest5318]

$15 an hour is a middle class wage? Yeah back in 1980

Yet Arizona raised minimum wage to $10.00/hr and rose from number three State in poverty, to number eight State in poverty.

President Trump knows, as many of us do that raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour is a stupid waste of time. We have to create jobs that pay a LOT more than that to fix this problem. Think $30-$40 an hour. $15 is retarded.

Middle-class spending creates the need for jobs.

No employer is going to pay more than they have too unless it makes financial sense, barring of course construction of a Maui vacation home.

No employer is going to pay more than they have to

For the sake of accuracy, what employers don't do is pay more than they've allocated in their payroll budget. What one must pay is always precisely what everyone and anyone pays for everything they purchase when they purchase it. That sum is never more nor less than what one must pay to obtain the good or service at that place and moment in time.

The issue was rate of pay to employees.

I agree. That is why I wrote what I did. Employee wages are nothing other than the price of labor, and labor is merely a service that employers purchase.

 

[OnePercenter]

You've managed to avoid the question.

Sure I can do that math.

I asked for your numbers, not some bloviating bullshit.

You want me to post my personal financial information on the internet? Ah...hell no

I made $7.5M last year, with an official income of $1. I paid ZERO in federal personal income tax.

I paid ZERO in federal personal income tax

How many dollars did your "Trust" pay in taxes?

$228K

 

[OnePercenter]

$15 an hour is a middle class wage? Yeah back in 1980

Yet Arizona raised minimum wage to $10.00/hr and rose from number three State in poverty, to number eight State in poverty.

President Trump knows, as many of us do that raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour is a stupid waste of time. We have to create jobs that pay a LOT more than that to fix this problem. Think $30-$40 an hour. $15 is retarded.

Middle-class spending creates the need for jobs.

No employer is going to pay more than they have too unless it makes financial sense, barring of course construction of a Maui vacation home.

No employer is going to pay more than they have to

For the sake of accuracy, what employers don't do is pay more than they've allocated in their payroll budget. What one must pay is always precisely what everyone and anyone pays for everything they purchase when they purchase it. That sum is never more nor less than what one must pay to obtain the good or service at that place and moment in time.

The issue was rate of pay to employees.

I agree. That is why I wrote what I did. Employee wages are nothing other than the price of labor, and labor is merely a service that employers purchase.

That's why I wrote that if Trump actually wanted to help the middle class he'd institute a $15.00/hr federal minimum wage and subsidize the increase to employers so employers don't get hurt. Plus, for each dollar spent it equates to $1.70 into the economy to help pay down the deficit, making the payback greater than 100%.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sure I can do that math.

I asked for your numbers, not some bloviating bullshit.

You want me to post my personal financial information on the internet? Ah...hell no

I made $7.5M last year, with an official income of $1. I paid ZERO in federal personal income tax.

I paid ZERO in federal personal income tax

How many dollars did your "Trust" pay in taxes?

$228K

Trust tax rates are much higher than that.

Trusts and estates: Uses and tax considerations

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yet Arizona raised minimum wage to $10.00/hr and rose from number three State in poverty, to number eight State in poverty.

President Trump knows, as many of us do that raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour is a stupid waste of time. We have to create jobs that pay a LOT more than that to fix this problem. Think $30-$40 an hour. $15 is retarded.

Middle-class spending creates the need for jobs.

No employer is going to pay more than they have too unless it makes financial sense, barring of course construction of a Maui vacation home.

No employer is going to pay more than they have to

For the sake of accuracy, what employers don't do is pay more than they've allocated in their payroll budget. What one must pay is always precisely what everyone and anyone pays for everything they purchase when they purchase it. That sum is never more nor less than what one must pay to obtain the good or service at that place and moment in time.

The issue was rate of pay to employees.

I agree. That is why I wrote what I did. Employee wages are nothing other than the price of labor, and labor is merely a service that employers purchase.

That's why I wrote that if Trump actually wanted to help the middle class he'd institute a $15.00/hr federal minimum wage and subsidize the increase to employers so employers don't get hurt. Plus, for each dollar spent it equates to $1.70 into the economy to help pay down the deficit, making the payback greater than 100%.

That's why I wrote that if Trump actually wanted to help the middle class he'd institute a $15.00/hr federal minimum wage

Middle class is currently below $15/hr?

 

[OnePercenter]

I asked for your numbers, not some bloviating bullshit.

You want me to post my personal financial information on the internet? Ah...hell no

I made $7.5M last year, with an official income of $1. I paid ZERO in federal personal income tax.

I paid ZERO in federal personal income tax

How many dollars did your "Trust" pay in taxes?

$228K

Trust tax rates are much higher than that.

View attachment 166483

Trusts and estates: Uses and tax considerations

Again, farm that trust through a Nevada corporation and see the results. Bill Gates and myself as many others are Nevada corporations.

 

[OnePercenter]

President Trump knows, as many of us do that raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour is a stupid waste of time. We have to create jobs that pay a LOT more than that to fix this problem. Think $30-$40 an hour. $15 is retarded.

Middle-class spending creates the need for jobs.

No employer is going to pay more than they have too unless it makes financial sense, barring of course construction of a Maui vacation home.

No employer is going to pay more than they have to

For the sake of accuracy, what employers don't do is pay more than they've allocated in their payroll budget. What one must pay is always precisely what everyone and anyone pays for everything they purchase when they purchase it. That sum is never more nor less than what one must pay to obtain the good or service at that place and moment in time.

The issue was rate of pay to employees.

I agree. That is why I wrote what I did. Employee wages are nothing other than the price of labor, and labor is merely a service that employers purchase.

That's why I wrote that if Trump actually wanted to help the middle class he'd institute a $15.00/hr federal minimum wage and subsidize the increase to employers so employers don't get hurt. Plus, for each dollar spent it equates to $1.70 into the economy to help pay down the deficit, making the payback greater than 100%.

That's why I wrote that if Trump actually wanted to help the middle class he'd institute a $15.00/hr federal minimum wage

Middle class is currently below $15/hr?

Arizona raised the State minimum wage to $10.00/hr. Arizona went from number 3 nationwide in poverty to number 8. There sir, is your answer.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You want me to post my personal financial information on the internet? Ah...hell no

I made $7.5M last year, with an official income of $1. I paid ZERO in federal personal income tax.

I paid ZERO in federal personal income tax

How many dollars did your "Trust" pay in taxes?

$228K

Trust tax rates are much higher than that.

View attachment 166483

Trusts and estates: Uses and tax considerations

Again, farm that trust through a Nevada corporation and see the results. Bill Gates and myself as many others are Nevada corporations.

Again, farm that trust through a Nevada corporation and see the results.

LOL!
Farm it through whatever you like, the federal rate is still 39.6%.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Middle-class spending creates the need for jobs.

No employer is going to pay more than they have too unless it makes financial sense, barring of course construction of a Maui vacation home.

No employer is going to pay more than they have to

For the sake of accuracy, what employers don't do is pay more than they've allocated in their payroll budget. What one must pay is always precisely what everyone and anyone pays for everything they purchase when they purchase it. That sum is never more nor less than what one must pay to obtain the good or service at that place and moment in time.

The issue was rate of pay to employees.

I agree. That is why I wrote what I did. Employee wages are nothing other than the price of labor, and labor is merely a service that employers purchase.

That's why I wrote that if Trump actually wanted to help the middle class he'd institute a $15.00/hr federal minimum wage and subsidize the increase to employers so employers don't get hurt. Plus, for each dollar spent it equates to $1.70 into the economy to help pay down the deficit, making the payback greater than 100%.

That's why I wrote that if Trump actually wanted to help the middle class he'd institute a $15.00/hr federal minimum wage

Middle class is currently below $15/hr?

Arizona raised the State minimum wage to $10.00/hr. Arizona went from number 3 nationwide in poverty to number 8. There sir, is your answer.

Middle class is currently poverty level?

 

[usmbguest5318]

California is a great place to live and do business. My business grew and life is great. Housing is an area problem. If you live out of the commute area for San Jose homes are cheap. Most work here starts at about $25 an hour or more. Consequently taxes are higher to pay for the infrastructure the state maintains and for the cities services as well as the counties.

Now taxing a tax is double dipping in most anyone's vocabulary. So to not be able to deduct property tax or state tax is a double tax on earnings. That was why they were excluded to begin with. Kinda like business license fees or building permit fees are deductible Same with vehicle depreciation and off road use tax credit.

Now taxing a tax is double dipping in most anyone's vocabulary.

You're right, California should allow deduction of Federal Income and Payroll taxes.

Me thinks you should consider taking a class in tax accounting.

Now taxing a tax is double dipping in most anyone's vocabulary.

I don't know what most people would say.

"Double-taxation" is a very specific term that has a very specific meaning and it refers only to income tax. I and others like me who've studied tax accounting and law understand that double-taxation (DT) a single government entity's two times imposing a tax on a given asset or income stream, or transaction owned by a given individual.

DT occurs when a given dollar is taxed when a C-corp's profits are taxed and then, when the corporation distributes those profits to the owners of the corporation, taxed again as personal income. That is DT because the sums taxed belong to the firm's owners regardless of who has possession of them at any point in time. After all, the substance of stock ownership is that each share represents an ownership stake in a company; thus the company's profits/losses are owned by each shareholder. Dividends the company pays are merely distributions of those profits, returns to the equity each owner invested in the company, which why they are called "capital gains."

1. C-corp A sells shares of stock
2. C-corp A earns profits on behalf of the stockholders
3. Government F taxes C-corp's earning at the corporate level
4. C-corp A transfers a proportionate share of income to stockholders
5. Government F taxes that income again.

The taxation on C-corp income become triple-taxed, by dint of state income taxes, if the shareholders and C-corp both have a nexus in a given state.

To see the difference, one need only look at how S-corps, sole proprietorships and partnerships are taxed. Those entities do not pay income tax; instead filing only information returns. The profits earned under the auspices of those entities are passed to the owners and taxed as part of the owner's income.

That is very different from, say, my earning income and then spending it on good/service another provides and both of us paying taxes on our income. In that scenario, I and the supplier are unrelated parties; thus the income I spend with the supplier becomes their income and it duly taxable to me and to the supplier.

Sole proprietors pay tax on what is left after deductions. They are not a pass through entity like the corporations.

I dare say you might want to review whatever instructional documents led you to choose the ID "Tax Man."

Sole proprietorships are pass through entities. Sole proprietors are the owners of sole proprietorships. Sole proprietors are, in substance, to sole proprietorships what shareholders are to C and S corporations. Similarly sole proprietors are to sole proprietorships what partners are to partnerships. Sole proprietors, partners and shareholders of corporations are not entities of any sort; they are individuals; however, the businesses they own are entities, and those entities, but for C-corps, are pass-through entities.

The key difference between a C-corp and an S-corp in the context of taxation is that C-corps are construed as independent entities and as such are subject to taxation, whereas S-corps (along with partnerships and sole proprietorships) are construed as indivisible from their owners.

• pass-through
  
• Pass-Through Entity Definition & Example | InvestingAnswers
  
• An Overview of Pass-through Businesses in the United States - Tax Foundation
  
• What are flow-through enterprises and how are they taxed?

Sole proprietors pay tax on what is left after deductions. They are not a pass through entity like the corporations.

Everyone, not just sole proprietors, who pays federal income taxes, in essence, calculates a provisional tax liability based (1) on taxable income, which by definition is their net income after having subtracted from gross income their allowed deductions, and (2) pays what is due after calculating their provisional tax liability and then subtracting from that any allowable tax credits. The basic federal income tax equation for all taxpayers is:

Gross income (income from all sources)
Less: "Above the line" deductions (aka pre-AGI deductions)
Adjusted gross income
Less: the greater of the standard deduction or the sum of allowed itemized deductions
Taxable income
Times: applicable tax rate
Provisional income tax
Less: allowed tax credits
Gross tax liability for the tax year
Less: taxes paid during the tax year
Current income tax liability -- This sum is what one must pay, usually no later than April 15th.​

As one can see from the equation above, if an individual tax payer (be they filing jointly or individually) who does not qualify for tax credits, calculates and pays their tax liability based on taxable income, which as noted, is "what's left after deductions."

 

[usmbguest5318]

California is a great place to live and do business. My business grew and life is great. Housing is an area problem. If you live out of the commute area for San Jose homes are cheap. Most work here starts at about $25 an hour or more. Consequently taxes are higher to pay for the infrastructure the state maintains and for the cities services as well as the counties.

Now taxing a tax is double dipping in most anyone's vocabulary. So to not be able to deduct property tax or state tax is a double tax on earnings. That was why they were excluded to begin with. Kinda like business license fees or building permit fees are deductible Same with vehicle depreciation and off road use tax credit.

Now taxing a tax is double dipping in most anyone's vocabulary.

You're right, California should allow deduction of Federal Income and Payroll taxes.

Me thinks you should consider taking a class in tax accounting.

Now taxing a tax is double dipping in most anyone's vocabulary.

I don't know what most people would say.

"Double-taxation" is a very specific term that has a very specific meaning and it refers only to income tax. I and others like me who've studied tax accounting and law understand that double-taxation (DT) a single government entity's two times imposing a tax on a given asset or income stream, or transaction owned by a given individual.

DT occurs when a given dollar is taxed when a C-corp's profits are taxed and then, when the corporation distributes those profits to the owners of the corporation, taxed again as personal income. That is DT because the sums taxed belong to the firm's owners regardless of who has possession of them at any point in time. After all, the substance of stock ownership is that each share represents an ownership stake in a company; thus the company's profits/losses are owned by each shareholder. Dividends the company pays are merely distributions of those profits, returns to the equity each owner invested in the company, which why they are called "capital gains."

1. C-corp A sells shares of stock
2. C-corp A earns profits on behalf of the stockholders
3. Government F taxes C-corp's earning at the corporate level
4. C-corp A transfers a proportionate share of income to stockholders
5. Government F taxes that income again.

The taxation on C-corp income become triple-taxed, by dint of state income taxes, if the shareholders and C-corp both have a nexus in a given state.

To see the difference, one need only look at how S-corps, sole proprietorships and partnerships are taxed. Those entities do not pay income tax; instead filing only information returns. The profits earned under the auspices of those entities are passed to the owners and taxed as part of the owner's income.

That is very different from, say, my earning income and then spending it on good/service another provides and both of us paying taxes on our income. In that scenario, I and the supplier are unrelated parties; thus the income I spend with the supplier becomes their income and it duly taxable to me and to the supplier.

Me thinks you should consider taking a class in tax accounting.

Is that your way of saying California is going to continue taxing a tax?

DT occurs when a given dollar is taxed when a C-corp's profits are taxed and then, when the corporation distributes those profits to the owners of the corporation, taxed again as personal income.

Yeah, that's the worst. They need to stop doing that.

Is that your way of saying California is going to continue taxing a tax?

No.

that's the worst. They need to stop doing that.

I agree.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Yet Arizona raised minimum wage to $10.00/hr and rose from number three State in poverty, to number eight State in poverty.

President Trump knows, as many of us do that raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour is a stupid waste of time. We have to create jobs that pay a LOT more than that to fix this problem. Think $30-$40 an hour. $15 is retarded.

Middle-class spending creates the need for jobs.

No employer is going to pay more than they have too unless it makes financial sense, barring of course construction of a Maui vacation home.

No employer is going to pay more than they have to

For the sake of accuracy, what employers don't do is pay more than they've allocated in their payroll budget. What one must pay is always precisely what everyone and anyone pays for everything they purchase when they purchase it. That sum is never more nor less than what one must pay to obtain the good or service at that place and moment in time.

The issue was rate of pay to employees.

I agree. That is why I wrote what I did. Employee wages are nothing other than the price of labor, and labor is merely a service that employers purchase.

That's why I wrote that if Trump actually wanted to help the middle class he'd institute a $15.00/hr federal minimum wage and subsidize the increase to employers so employers don't get hurt. Plus, for each dollar spent it equates to $1.70 into the economy to help pay down the deficit, making the payback greater than 100%.

Oh, my....

 

[usmbguest5318]

President Trump knows, as many of us do that raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour is a stupid waste of time. We have to create jobs that pay a LOT more than that to fix this problem. Think $30-$40 an hour. $15 is retarded.

Middle-class spending creates the need for jobs.

No employer is going to pay more than they have too unless it makes financial sense, barring of course construction of a Maui vacation home.

No employer is going to pay more than they have to

For the sake of accuracy, what employers don't do is pay more than they've allocated in their payroll budget. What one must pay is always precisely what everyone and anyone pays for everything they purchase when they purchase it. That sum is never more nor less than what one must pay to obtain the good or service at that place and moment in time.

The issue was rate of pay to employees.

I agree. That is why I wrote what I did. Employee wages are nothing other than the price of labor, and labor is merely a service that employers purchase.

That's why I wrote that if Trump actually wanted to help the middle class he'd institute a $15.00/hr federal minimum wage and subsidize the increase to employers so employers don't get hurt. Plus, for each dollar spent it equates to $1.70 into the economy to help pay down the deficit, making the payback greater than 100%.

That's why I wrote that if Trump actually wanted to help the middle class he'd institute a $15.00/hr federal minimum wage

Middle class is currently below $15/hr?

I don't recall who, but I do recall some moths back being rebutted by someone on USMB who declared, in substance, that $15/hr is, in some U.S. locales, enough to support a middle class lifestyle.

My thoughts on the veracity or even plausibility of that proposition is that can be found folks of all sorts who harbor myriad specious notions.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

California is a great place to live and do business. My business grew and life is great. Housing is an area problem. If you live out of the commute area for San Jose homes are cheap. Most work here starts at about $25 an hour or more. Consequently taxes are higher to pay for the infrastructure the state maintains and for the cities services as well as the counties.

Now taxing a tax is double dipping in most anyone's vocabulary. So to not be able to deduct property tax or state tax is a double tax on earnings. That was why they were excluded to begin with. Kinda like business license fees or building permit fees are deductible Same with vehicle depreciation and off road use tax credit.

Now taxing a tax is double dipping in most anyone's vocabulary.

You're right, California should allow deduction of Federal Income and Payroll taxes.

Me thinks you should consider taking a class in tax accounting.

Now taxing a tax is double dipping in most anyone's vocabulary.

I don't know what most people would say.

"Double-taxation" is a very specific term that has a very specific meaning and it refers only to income tax. I and others like me who've studied tax accounting and law understand that double-taxation (DT) a single government entity's two times imposing a tax on a given asset or income stream, or transaction owned by a given individual.

DT occurs when a given dollar is taxed when a C-corp's profits are taxed and then, when the corporation distributes those profits to the owners of the corporation, taxed again as personal income. That is DT because the sums taxed belong to the firm's owners regardless of who has possession of them at any point in time. After all, the substance of stock ownership is that each share represents an ownership stake in a company; thus the company's profits/losses are owned by each shareholder. Dividends the company pays are merely distributions of those profits, returns to the equity each owner invested in the company, which why they are called "capital gains."

1. C-corp A sells shares of stock
2. C-corp A earns profits on behalf of the stockholders
3. Government F taxes C-corp's earning at the corporate level
4. C-corp A transfers a proportionate share of income to stockholders
5. Government F taxes that income again.

The taxation on C-corp income become triple-taxed, by dint of state income taxes, if the shareholders and C-corp both have a nexus in a given state.

To see the difference, one need only look at how S-corps, sole proprietorships and partnerships are taxed. Those entities do not pay income tax; instead filing only information returns. The profits earned under the auspices of those entities are passed to the owners and taxed as part of the owner's income.

That is very different from, say, my earning income and then spending it on good/service another provides and both of us paying taxes on our income. In that scenario, I and the supplier are unrelated parties; thus the income I spend with the supplier becomes their income and it duly taxable to me and to the supplier.

Me thinks you should consider taking a class in tax accounting.

Is that your way of saying California is going to continue taxing a tax?

DT occurs when a given dollar is taxed when a C-corp's profits are taxed and then, when the corporation distributes those profits to the owners of the corporation, taxed again as personal income.

Yeah, that's the worst. They need to stop doing that.

Is that your way of saying California is going to continue taxing a tax?

No.

that's the worst. They need to stop doing that.

I agree.

Is that your way of saying California is going to continue taxing a tax?

No.

If I live in California, they tax me on tax I've already paid to the Federal government.
They should stop doing that.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Middle-class spending creates the need for jobs.

No employer is going to pay more than they have too unless it makes financial sense, barring of course construction of a Maui vacation home.

No employer is going to pay more than they have to

For the sake of accuracy, what employers don't do is pay more than they've allocated in their payroll budget. What one must pay is always precisely what everyone and anyone pays for everything they purchase when they purchase it. That sum is never more nor less than what one must pay to obtain the good or service at that place and moment in time.

The issue was rate of pay to employees.

I agree. That is why I wrote what I did. Employee wages are nothing other than the price of labor, and labor is merely a service that employers purchase.

That's why I wrote that if Trump actually wanted to help the middle class he'd institute a $15.00/hr federal minimum wage and subsidize the increase to employers so employers don't get hurt. Plus, for each dollar spent it equates to $1.70 into the economy to help pay down the deficit, making the payback greater than 100%.

That's why I wrote that if Trump actually wanted to help the middle class he'd institute a $15.00/hr federal minimum wage

Middle class is currently below $15/hr?

I don't recall who, but I do recall some moths back being rebutted by someone on USMB who declared, in substance, that $15/hr is, in some U.S. locales, enough to support a middle class lifestyle.

My thoughts on the veracity or even plausibility of that proposition is that can be found folks of all sorts who harbor myriad specious notions.

If that claim were true, the middle class is not helped by bringing others up to the middle class.

 

[my2¢]

I selected 15% plus. But that's a preliminary figure based on the plan Trump touted during the campaign which would save me 16%..

The media should have really useful information for tax planning purposes in 4-to-6 weeks after tax reform is signed into law.
I'll wait until then to adjust my federal tax withholding accordingly and come up with a true savings percentage.

 

[usmbguest5318]

California is a great place to live and do business. My business grew and life is great. Housing is an area problem. If you live out of the commute area for San Jose homes are cheap. Most work here starts at about $25 an hour or more. Consequently taxes are higher to pay for the infrastructure the state maintains and for the cities services as well as the counties.

Now taxing a tax is double dipping in most anyone's vocabulary. So to not be able to deduct property tax or state tax is a double tax on earnings. That was why they were excluded to begin with. Kinda like business license fees or building permit fees are deductible Same with vehicle depreciation and off road use tax credit.

Now taxing a tax is double dipping in most anyone's vocabulary.

You're right, California should allow deduction of Federal Income and Payroll taxes.

Me thinks you should consider taking a class in tax accounting.

Now taxing a tax is double dipping in most anyone's vocabulary.

I don't know what most people would say.

"Double-taxation" is a very specific term that has a very specific meaning and it refers only to income tax. I and others like me who've studied tax accounting and law understand that double-taxation (DT) a single government entity's two times imposing a tax on a given asset or income stream, or transaction owned by a given individual.

DT occurs when a given dollar is taxed when a C-corp's profits are taxed and then, when the corporation distributes those profits to the owners of the corporation, taxed again as personal income. That is DT because the sums taxed belong to the firm's owners regardless of who has possession of them at any point in time. After all, the substance of stock ownership is that each share represents an ownership stake in a company; thus the company's profits/losses are owned by each shareholder. Dividends the company pays are merely distributions of those profits, returns to the equity each owner invested in the company, which why they are called "capital gains."

1. C-corp A sells shares of stock
2. C-corp A earns profits on behalf of the stockholders
3. Government F taxes C-corp's earning at the corporate level
4. C-corp A transfers a proportionate share of income to stockholders
5. Government F taxes that income again.

The taxation on C-corp income become triple-taxed, by dint of state income taxes, if the shareholders and C-corp both have a nexus in a given state.

To see the difference, one need only look at how S-corps, sole proprietorships and partnerships are taxed. Those entities do not pay income tax; instead filing only information returns. The profits earned under the auspices of those entities are passed to the owners and taxed as part of the owner's income.

That is very different from, say, my earning income and then spending it on good/service another provides and both of us paying taxes on our income. In that scenario, I and the supplier are unrelated parties; thus the income I spend with the supplier becomes their income and it duly taxable to me and to the supplier.

Me thinks you should consider taking a class in tax accounting.

Is that your way of saying California is going to continue taxing a tax?

DT occurs when a given dollar is taxed when a C-corp's profits are taxed and then, when the corporation distributes those profits to the owners of the corporation, taxed again as personal income.

Yeah, that's the worst. They need to stop doing that.

Is that your way of saying California is going to continue taxing a tax?

No.

that's the worst. They need to stop doing that.

I agree.

Is that your way of saying California is going to continue taxing a tax?

No.

If I live in California, they tax me on tax I've already paid to the Federal government.
They should stop doing that.

If I live in California, they tax me on tax I've already paid to the Federal government.
They should stop doing that.

I don't know whether, in writing that, you're being equivocal or just don't understand tax know what you're saying. Either way, you just keep thinking that....

Usually I just write the above and move on. I think you care about taxation, so I'm going to take a moment and explain at a very high level why I have written "you just keep thinking that..."

While I was willing to engage in enough didacticism to outline the basic tax equation, I'm not willing to expound on accounting and tax theory and tax practice. You and everyone else will have to take the same personal and corporate tax classes I did to discover those things. One can do so via stand-alone courses or as part of either a business baccalaureate accounting or graduate (LLM in Taxation, MBA or MS in Tax) degree program.

• Pearson's Federal Taxation
• S-Corporation Taxation
• Wolters Kluwer Tax texts

I, however, have yet to encounter anyone here whose remarks indicate they have the background and experience to make of any value or interest their and my debating/discussing tax theory and practice, most especially not someone who writes the statement you did. That statement indicates a level of novelty that just isn't worth this juncture pursuing further a discussion that depends on a keen understanding of tax theory.​

Do not misconstrue the above for haughtiness. It is not. It is simply my recognizing that I'm just not willing to put in the effort it'd take to disabuse you of the notion you stated. Truly I don't care enough to do so nor, you will find if you peruse any of the linked texts, do I have the time to do so.