The Holy Roller Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 I never said I didn't like your idea. I'm merely exposing the inherent impossibilities of any "simple" solution. Plus, no matter how theoretically awesome any plan is on paper, it won't matter unless you can fundamentally change how laws are made in DC. Perhaps I'm overly pessimistic because of what I see every day at work. I just don't see any workable solutions that are also politically achievable - which is just the way certain people like it. I'm half serious that it might take armed revolt to scrap the Code and start over. Indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 Yep, I can't believe how many lobbyists are running around Washington advocating for welfare mothers. They don't need money. They pay the politicians with their vote, keeping them in power. Surely you see this? I never said I didn't like your idea. I'm merely exposing the inherent impossibilities of any "simple" solution. Plus, no matter how theoretically awesome any plan is on paper, it won't matter unless you can fundamentally change how laws are made in DC. Perhaps I'm overly pessimistic because of what I see every day at work. I just don't see any workable solutions that are also politically achievable - which is just the way certain people like it. I'm half serious that it might take armed revolt to scrap the Code and start over. The issue as I see it is the little trinkets in the tax code for businesses (MACRS, ACRS, treatments of farm implements, etc.) If you tied the tax code to GAAP, you could get away from a lot of that, and do a pretty good job of ensuring honesty. The AICPA is absolutely aboveboard with everything as far as I know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apathy Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 The issue as I see it is the little trinkets in the tax code for businesses (MACRS, ACRS, treatments of farm implements, etc.) If you tied the tax code to GAAP, you could get away from a lot of that, and do a pretty good job of ensuring honesty. The AICPA is absolutely aboveboard with everything as far as I know. Tax accountants and financial accountants alike live in la-la land. I agree GAAP is a lot closer to economic reality than the IRC but not sure how well massive impairment hits being deducted on corporate tax returns would go over with democrats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 Warren Buffet admits that he is only being taxed 17.4 % while most middle class families are between 33% and 41%. per his article in the NYT. Well, and I am drawing from another baord here as well: Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent. Burden = all taxes divided by taxable income by Buffet's definition And to be even fairer, Buffet won't be affected much by higher marginal income tax rates because most of his wealth is in Berkshire stock and compounds without being subject to tax. His statement is very misleading. How could his employees pay higher Fed tax rates than actually exist, unless he's counting their entire tax burden, and if so, why is he comparing those to only his federal tax rate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 Well, and I am drawing from another baord here as well: Burden = all taxes divided by taxable income by Buffet's definition Oops, now what will you-conn trot out to support his wealth-envy victimization? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 Tax accountants and financial accountants alike live in la-la land. I agree GAAP is a lot closer to economic reality than the IRC but not sure how well massive impairment hits being deducted on corporate tax returns would go over with democrats. Maybe use SCF/cash basis? The impairment is just as real as depreciation, don't you think? You bought an asset, it isn't going to perform as expected, so you write it down to expected future cash flows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 They don't need money. They pay the politicians with their vote, keeping them in power. Surely you see this? poor people aren't susceptible to campaign promises of handouts and redistributing wealth. they are only susceptible to wiley ad campaigns by corporations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 poor people aren't susceptible to campaign promises of handouts and redistributing wealth. they are only susceptible to wiley ad campaigns by corporations. I knew we could blame all of this on twiley. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 I knew we could blame all of this on twiley. that connection occurred to me as I was typing the words. figured I'd leave it in there as a little easter egg. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTed46 Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 Some people who purchased homes realy heavily on the tax deductions currently allowed by the IRS. If you take this away and go to a flat tax now, I can see in some cases where they may lose their homes. This may be a minority of people or alot of people, I dont have data but its just a thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 Some people who purchased homes realy heavily on the tax deductions currently allowed by the IRS. If you take this away and go to a flat tax now, I can see in some cases where they may lose their homes. This may be a minority of people or alot of people, I dont have data but its just a thought. well it will be offset by having their overall tax rate go down say 8-10%. some will end up paying a little more, some a little less, but the differences won't be drastic enough by themselves to be forcing many people out of their homes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTed46 Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 well it will be offset by having their overall tax rate go down say 8-10%. some will end up paying a little more, some a little less, but the differences won't be drastic enough by themselves to be forcing many people out of their homes. I understand that, but I think I would have a problem with even some losing their homes based on tax changes. That is a major life changer for those who fall into that category and have done nothing wrong but planned their finances according to the current law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 I understand that, but I think I would have a problem with even some losing their homes based on tax changes. That is a major life changer for those who fall into that category and have done nothing wrong but planned their finances according to the current law. There used to be a tax relief on mortgages in England, called MIRAS. It was phased out over 5 years and no-one felt the impact. I would envisage some similar stepped approach here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 There used to be a tax relief on mortgages in England, called MIRAS. It was phased out over 5 years and no-one felt the impact. I would envisage some similar stepped approach here. There are always things to be done to soften any changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twiley Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 I knew we could blame all of this on twiley. that connection occurred to me as I was typing the words. figured I'd leave it in there as a little easter egg. A brother's gotta make a livin'. Funny enough, I may be doing some political advertising this fall. Those guys have fat wallets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 I am opposed to any constitutional amendment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 I am opposed to any constitutional amendment. Especially the 19th one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 I am opposed to any constitutional amendment. I am apposed to sex with pro lifers! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Especially the 19th one. I am apposed to sex with pro lifers! I guess to finish the thought...requiring a balanced budget. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.