Yeah, I agree. I still think I’m right–how many small business owners let their kids hang out in the business and do homework, how many use the business to fix their own cars or prep meals for their family or treat their own pets or whatever, how many small business owners use their work computers to make personal Amazon purchases or to manage their fantasy football teams?–but overall, this is a distraction from the main issue, which is that a person who believes in gaming the system for his personal benefit and who works very hard not to contribute to the public good is not a person qualified to oversee the public good.
When I was in school to become a teacher, we had a class on children’s lit. We introduced ourselves the first day by standing up and telling everyone what our favorite book was. One student stood up and declared, “I hate reading and don’t read anything except the Bible.”
My criticism of her career aspirations coincide in this case with my criticism of Trump’s.
But your point on the uniforms was that the employee can deduct their cost if required to wear them, but an office worker who is required to wear a suit cannot deduct that suit because he might wear it to a wedding, for example.
My point is that the employee who deducts the cost of the uniforms might wear them in other circumstances, which would not affect the deductibility of the uniforms. Unless you’re saying that, say, an employee is required to buy $500 worth of uniforms in 2014. He deducts the cost of the uniforms on his 2014 taxes. In 2015, he wears one of the uniforms three times to do dirty jobs around the house. Is he supposed to figure out the value of those wearings and somehow take it as income?
In 2015, I would expect that to be de minimis. However, the criteria in 2014 for deducting the cost of uniforms would be that he must wear them as a condition of employment AND they are not suitable for everyday wear. It is up to the taxpayer to make that determination for themselves.
I’m sure a large number of small business owners and people in general take questionable tax positions. The rules are what they are.
I expect every single individual to avoid tax when feasible and practical. There is a spectrum of types of activities that I personally would find disqualifying - but carrying forward losses, taking advantage of offshore transfer pricing rules, etc. are not among them.
This was long before 2013, so the simplified method would not apply. If I’m understanding this correctly, reduction of the basis would increase the delta between the purchase price and the sale price, less capital improvements of course.
That would increase the amount taxable. The non-business part of the house wouldn’t be an issue since the house we bought cost more and therefore that part was not taxed. The business part might have been more than I think.
We did use a professional, so I assume it was done right. In any case, the statute of limitations has long since passed.
Let’s not forget how many small business owners and tradespeople do jobs, under the table, for cash or barter in order to avoid taxes. This is an extremely common practice, and unlike what Trump did, it’s illegal.
I can’t get worked up at all about Trump’s taxes. That’s what people do. Besides, I don’t need that as a reason to not vote for him-- there are countless others.
@Voyager: Yes, I did not mean to imply something was improper. Tax rules are complicated is all.
Many of the rules have a real reason they exist in that even if setting rules up anew they would still likely make the cut - carryforwards and carryback are among them IMO. There are however, other areas that really don’t make sense and encourage defensive tax behavior that makes less sense. Fact pattern and unintended consequences rule the day.
Whereas I don’t, any more than I expect every business to take every means of profit when legal and feasible. In both cases the law establishes the bare minimum you can get away with; ethical behavior often involves something more than the bare minimum.
If someone is struggling to put food on the table or to provide medical care for their children, that’s one thing; certainly looking for ways to save is important. But if someone is gold-plating their shitter, I expect them to find a way to pay their fair share, not to penny-pinch the public.
OK, how about me. I’m not a 1%er, but I’m definitely a 2%er at the least. Am I evil because I take every tax deduction I can? And mods, I give LHoD permission to call me evil if he thinks I am. I won’t be insulted. But only for tax related issued!!
If you are highly wealthy and figure out a way to pay zero income tax, yes, I think that’s unethical. If you tell me you do so while ginning up white supremacists and encouraging mass murder, then I’ll bump that up to evil. But it’s a lame rhetorical gambit to exaggerate what I’m saying into something I’m not saying.
Do you lobby Congress to add more tax deductions exclusively for people in your very specific situation? No? Then you’re not doing everything you can to lower your taxes.
Ok. I think it’s a disagreement on ethical behavior and what is fair. I personally try to maximize my deductions, but at the same time I am risk averse so only take tax positions that are iron clad. If I could reduce my tax liability to zero that would be wonderful. I pay a shit ton of other taxes in every other area.
What I don’t like about Trump’s actions is that he is gold-plating his toilet with our money.
In a hypothetical world where people get rich by developing companies which then pay taxes and employee more people, then I wouldn’t object as much. However, when it becomes just another part of a scam, where we are subsidizing an extravagant lifestyle then I’m not as thrilled.
“Prescient” isn’t the right word for realizing something that was obvious way back then. “Ignorant” could describe not realizing that same thing way back when, but I wasn’t gonna go there.
And in the fantasy world of Reaganomics - now Trumponomics - this is exactly what happens. The rich get all this extra money from tax breaks and spend it opening new businesses, employing people.
The problem is that the U.S. based labor involved in gold plating your toilet is not a significant component of the cost of your gold plated toilet. That any sensible business man is going to open his factories where labor is cheap (plus other considerations - you need stability in government and good infrastructure) - that usually isn’t the U.S. when you are talking labor intensive processes.
You are somewhat better off giving tax breaks to the middle class, IMHO. They are more likely to use a bigger proportion of it for things that drive U.S. labor - dinner out, reroofing the house, domestic travel. Plus they’ll use it to invest in their kids - which is a long term investment that benefits the country (college).
Well, you said it was unethical, but I suppose I should not have extrapolated that to immoral on my own. Do you think what Trump did was immoral?
How much tax does this person have to pay so that his actions are unethical? We are speaking of a matter of degrees here. I don’t know of anyone who doesn’t take every tax deduction he or she is able to take. At what point would you stop taking deductions that were perfectly legal?
Didn’t think you did. There was a lot of talk about home offices and what counted and what didn’t back then. Hers would have passed muster with no problem. We got caught on the gains part - and it is something that we and probably most others don’t think about.
As for the bigger point, Theresa Heinz Kerry had almost all her money in municipal bonds for Pittsburgh and perhaps the surrounding area. The decreased her taxes to some extent, but it was done not for that but to help her city. Trump didn’t lose money to save on taxes, and he did not write that particular part of the tax law. Where I fault him is that he made a big deal of closing other peoples loopholes but not his. That is the unethical - and hypocritical - part.
Also bragging about it.
I’m still unsure that most people’s objection to his behavior is based on ignorance. There’s a pretty broad consensus, I believe, that people should pay their fair share, and that gaming the system to pay nothing when that’s not the intent of the tax laws is skeezy behavior. Hell, Romney criticized people for paying nothing when they did so out of poverty, and was broadly defended by Republicans for this criticism. The consensus that everyone should pay something is even broader than my view that the wealthy should pay something.
I’m not exactly sure the difference you’re assigning to the two words, or if given the difference you assign I believe “immoral” is a thing, so I’m going to decline to answer this question. Sorry.
This is a paradox of the mound problem, suggesting that there’s an exact cutoff when it’s really more of a spectrum. Instead I’ll describe two ends of the spectrum. On one end is someone who is genuinely having trouble feeding their family. If they go for every tax loophole they can, including not paying taxes on the tips at their restaurant job, I’m not worried about it. On the other end is someone who gold-plates their toilet. If they go for every legal tax loophole they can, and end up not paying a significant share of social expenses, I’m worried about it.
But what about me? Put it this way: when I buy craft supplies, I can get a 15% discount by showing my teacher ID. I only show it when I’m buying supplies for my classroom; when I’m buying supplies for my own kids, I don’t. Not exactly taxes, but I’m very clear that I don’t take every money-saving trick that I’m technically entitled to, rather only taking the ones in whose spirit I’m acting.
