I understand that professional gamblers filing Schedule C tax returns are treated differently than regular, individual filers. But if you want to start a conversation about something as specific as the tax code, then you need to be much clearer in your claims.
You said:
But this is already true, even for professional gamblers who file Schedule C returns. They are only allowed to deduct (gambling) losses to the extent of (gambling) winnings.
The difference for professional gamblers is that they can ALSO deduct, even beyond the extent of winnings, the gambling-related expenses they incur. But gambling-related expenses are specifically NOT the actual losses from gambling; they include things like transportation, meals, table fees, and other stuff that is NOT the actual money wagered.
It is worth noting, by the way, that allowing professional gamblers to deduct gambling expenses beyond the extent of their gambling winnings is a rather recent development. It was the result of the *Mayo *case (2011), which overturned part of the *Offutt *case (1951), and which followed a 2009 memo issued by the IRS itself. You can read about the court cases, and the implications of Mayo, in this Journal of Accountancy article:
As for the tax plan as a whole, it’s a total clusterfuck, but your mediocre contributions to this thread so far have really done nothing to illuminate its problems.
The law isn’t poorly thought out, it is unethical.
According to senate rules, the tax cut bill cannot cost more than 1.5 trillion over 10 years, which works out to about $150 billion a year.
The supply side tax cuts that the GOP are pushing are far bigger than 1.5 trillion. Elimination of the estate tax, cutting the upper ranges of income tax, cutting the corporate tax, cutting the tax on ‘small businesses’ (meaning wealthy businesses).
That costs way more than 1.5 trillion, so they need to raise taxes on other people to keep the big within the 1.5 trillion limit. So they are raising a ton of taxes by eliminating deductions people use.
It is an effort to transfer wealth upwards. They are raising taxes on the upper middle class to fund a tax cut on the rich. It isn’t poorly thought out, this is their goal.
It is going to be higher than that. The average IQ of a college graduate is supposedly about 110-115, average IQ of someone with a graduate degree is closer to 120. DC has a very high % of people with tertiary educations.
I’d wager it is one of the higher IQ enclaves in the US along with Silicon valley.
I know a lot of the stuff about the bill is still murky but definitions of words are not changing.
I think Wesley is correct. Its like judging the IQ of Hollywood based on Charlie Sheen and Darryl Hannah.
It takes a LOT of smart people to run the country. When it comes to intelligence and competence, even really smart public figures like Hillary are only about average for an agency head. A lot are smarter but they can’t win elections (and apparently neither can Hillary).
People of low IQ have a difficult time performing tasks beyond simple things like mopping the floor and taking out the trash. To rise through the ranks from local to State to Federal government takes a certain amount of general capability that makes it unlikely that anyone is below 100. I’m sure that there are a few people in the 130-140 range, at least, if not higher. And if you don’t have some people in the 60-70 range to balance those out, then you simply can’t have an average below 100.
PS - In the hotly contested “OP Least Likely to Arouse Sympathy”, your notion that the Republican tax plan is bad because it is too hard on gamblers is a strong front-runner.
Very fine points. I was talking about all ±650,000 who live in the city, not just those in government. That being said, there’s more college degrees here than anywhere else… but also a horrible high school graduation rate. So I went with 100.