|
Nothing to do but wait around for her welfare check, but still too lazy to do her own research.... |
|
|
We are already ripping mad at our GOP congressmen for continuing to vote for these bills. Why can't YOU guys vote to support the Bush veto on that scandalously pork-riddled agriculture bill? You will have a second chance to do that next week. Instead of poking us with what we already know, how about doing something in Washington? It is not just a Democrat problem. YOU GUYS ARE NOW DEMOCRATS TOO! We now have a defacto one-party system. Start knocking heads in DC! We are already doing everything we can to stop all of the amnesty riders that keep appearing on many important spending bills. Someone needs to make a speech on the floor to shame Congress as a hopelessly corrupt institution. Even in the face of a disastrous November, you guys still can't change what is making us angry. So I ask you. What do you want from us? |
|
|
sounds like accounting methods to me |
|
|
For those having difficulty finding the exact language of the bill, one need only go to Yahoo and search on "trial lawyer tax breaks in bill". The very first hit (http://www.pointoflaw.com/archives/2008/05/a-16-billion-tax-break-for-tri.php) contains the exact language in question. This was very easy to find, by the way, so I'm surprised anyone who really looked had trouble finding the info. |
|
Thank you for once again pointing out Kimberly's limited faculties.
She must have been quite the teenaged idiotic handful growing up.
By the way Kimberly-- I found additional info. just fine on Google too.
|
|
In Congress are Lawyers, this makes sense. Protect your own pocket book.
That's why they haven't renewed FISA. |
|
let me tell you about a tax break son. if i owne a company or was a salesman for a company i could take my customers. all of them (say four) to dinnerat the most expensive restaurant in town, wine and dine them to their hearts content, take a limo to the ball park where my company owns a private box, watch the ball game with them while swilling manhattens and eating snacks all afternoon, then limo to a hotel room which i have rented oin a permanent basis under tha name of my company where they could take a nap in a 750.00 a night hotel. limo again to a broadway show where i have third row center seats, limo to an after show drink, or two or three or so then to bed in said hotel room, AND TAXPAYERS WILL PAY FOR MOST OF IT. is there anyone out there who can give me the rationale for this?
|
|
To mrbmrb
This is not true. If the business can write this off as a business expense, it means they don't pay taxes in the amount they wrote off. How does that equate to anyone paying for it? Unless you seriously believe that all taxes not paid by one entity have to be paid by more taxes on another. The truth is, if the business cannot deduct these expenses, then the customers of said company will have to pay for them. Who are the customers? Not sure, but I'd say there's a good chance they're taxpayers.
On the other hand, if this wining and dining results in, say, a couple million dollars in sales (companies don't typically wine and dine schmoes like me - they reserve this for their biggest customers), the company WILL pay taxes on that, the business will benefit, the employees will benefit and more taxes will be paid. |
|
|
maybe i was thinking about not doing it at all.. why should buisiness bye allowed to do it at all? your argument is so ridiculous i find myseklf at a loss to try and untangle your reasoning enough to reply. lets see. if what you say is tru, and taxes must be paid by somebody, it would make sense to take paying taxes away from business altogether, let them write off everything, or better yet just dont ask them any questions and well pick up the entire tab. certainly possible but nonsense. about as sensible as saying lets forget the individual income tax and let business pay all the taxes. no real difference between them except i woulf feel better with the latter. |
|
|
Taxpayers don't pay for companies' business expenses, and "deducting an expense" doesn't mean they don't pay that amount of taxes -- it means they don't pay taxes ON that amount. In other words, say a business has $10,000 in expenses. That doesn't mean they won't pay $10,000 in taxes. It means that ten grand won't be taxed as regular income. Huge difference. |
|
mrbmrb:
Naturally, I don't see anything ridiculous at all about my point. If the business can write-off an expense from the taxes it pays, how does that hurt you? Do you think it means you have to pay more taxes?
I'm saying the business will ultimately pay MORE taxes because of their wining and dining because it helps them to earn more revenue. Revenue they will pay taxes on. And use to hire and pay employees.
They will pay more taxes on the earnings from a million dollar sale that will more than make up for the few thousand dollars they get to write off from wining and dining.
Finally, I'm saying if they can't deduct it, then they'll pass that cost on to the people who buy their products.
But I'll stop assuming what your reasoning is and ask you: why is my reasoning wrong? How do you figure we're picking up the tab? |
|
I'd just like to reiterate that tax deductions are NOT deducted from the amount of taxes you pay. They are deducted from your taxable income before you calculate your taxes. So, if you earn $100,000 and have a $10,000 deduction, that doesn't mean you pay $10,000 less in taxes. It means you pay taxes on $100,000 minus the $10,000 deduction.
Let's take those numbers and assume your tax rate is 20%. 20% of $100,000 is $20,000, right? Well, the way some here seem to understand it, a $10,000 deduction would mean you'd only pay the remaining $10,000 in taxes. But that isn't how it works.
Instead, here's what happens. You have $100,000 in income, and a $10,000 deduction. That means you'll pay 20% of $90,000 instead of 20% of $100,000. That is NOT a $10,000 tax break. It's a $2,000 tax break.
FYI, everyone who pays the income tax gets a "standard deduction" of about $10,000. That doesn't mean everyone gets a $10,000 tax break. It just means that the first $10,000 of your income isn't taxed. There's a universe of difference between those two things. |
|
Just want to be more specific about the "standard deduction."
I should have said everyone who pays income taxes gets a standard deduction of UP TO $10,300 (plus more if you're over a certain age or blind). Here's a reference that explains the specific numbers and circumstances (for those who really like links):
http://www.wwwebtax.com/deductions_z_other/standard_deducti on.htm
You'll notice what it says at the top:
"The standard deduction is a fixed dollar amount that reduces the amount of income on which you pay tax on your tax return."
Right. It doesn't get deducted from the amount you pay. It gets deducted from the amount ON WHICH you pay. |
|
take what you say is true., assune evrything else stas constant. who pays the difference in taxes needed to pay fo
government?unless you assune that the anount that the company would pay on what they spend for entertainment expense , if it were no longer paid in taxes, would magically decrease the cost of government and the tax revenue necessay to acomplish that. Real magic. if you take away entertainment expense as a legitimate deduction, and businesses decid that they will connive to figure out some otheraccount to use that money for as a tax deduction, fine. Ill take that. its just that the example i used although accurate as to what a business can do for entertainment expense is obscene. perhaps they could find a better use for the money they save in the entertainment account,
|
|
First, if you'll do me the favor of going back and reading what I said, you'll notice I never took a position as to the right and wrong of deducting business lunches and the like. I was merely attempting to explain away the commonly held misconception that a $100 business lunch means a $100 tax break. It doesn't, and that remains true.
Second, I'll agree that some businesses deduct questionable expenses. Some individuals do that, too. That's what audits are for. I assure you if those expenses aren't legitimate, the auditors won't find them deductible. Problem solved.
Third, perhaps the government should try cutting spending for once instead of taking more in taxes. For example, if I spend too much money I have no right to go to my boss and demand a raise. Employers pay people based on their work product, not their expenses. Government, however, is a very different story. Year after year those in Congress ON BOTH SIDES have spent this country to the brink of bankruptcy, then come to us -- both you and me -- to demand more money. Can anyone here honestly say they don't think the government is wasting enough to give us a tax break if only they'd reduce spending? If you disagree, I humbly urge you to research how much was spent on earmarks just this year. |
|
I don't know if you're aware of this, but you made part of the Congressman's argument for him. Kind of you, though I suspect it was unintentional.
Your point, if I'm not mistaken, is that businesses shouldn't be permitted to deduct entertainment expenses, because the process is so easily abused. Well, that's what the Democrats just gave trial lawyers a greater ability to do -- "connive" to reduce their taxes.
I guess you should probably complain to the Democrat leadership of the house that the money they need won't "magically" appear out of nowhere if they let trial lawyers deduct more expenses. Just a suggestion. |
|
|
Here is how it works. I accept your case on a contingency. Big truck runs you over and denies responsibility and biggest insurance company hires best lawyers and best experts to say they are not responsible even though three witnesses blame truck. I then have to spends tens of thousands of dollars on experts to prove big insurance company and lawyers and experts are making up stories so big business makes profits and does not accept responsibility. Under the current system I cannot take as a business deductions on the tens of thousands of dollars I spend on case at time I spend monies. Rather, I have to wait years for big insurance company to accept responsibiltiy for crash. The monies I spend on case are real dollars. Every other business gets to deduct real dollars the year they spend monies. This is not a giveaway. |
|
|
here's how it works. I get rear ended minimal damage to both vehicles he gets the ticket and I go home.A few days latter I'm deluged with letters from ambulance chasers telling me I have the right to so many visits to a chiropractor for my (injuries).Even though I'm not feeling any pain I go and the chiropractor tells me I have soft tissue damage to my neck and just happens to know I good lawyer.Said lawyer sues insurance co which caves easily to cut their losses,resulting in high auto and medical premiums. |
|
It's simply not true that, "Every other business gets to deduct real dollars the year they spend monies." According to the Turbotax website, "...if you purchase an asset for your business that you will use beyond the current tax year, you must spread out the deduction over the asset's expected life." In other words, no, not every other business can deduct all of their expenses during the year in which they are incurred. It depends entirely on the nature of the expense.
Here's the link: http://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tools/taking_business_tax_d eductions/small-biz-article
Bottom line, if giving tax breaks amounts to a "giveaway" as Democrats so often say, then this is most certainly a Democrat giveaway to the trial lawyers. |
|
In the course of writing about lawyers and tax deductions, I’m reminded of the time two lawyers listed as a deduction the “charitable” donation of used underwear given to Goodwill. Perhaps, as a prior poster suggested, someone should have asked these folks who pays the difference in taxes needed to pay for government.
Anyone want to ask me the names of those lawyers? I'd love to share. |
|
For HongonOs:
I fully understand this. You deduct the amount from earnings. So you pay taxes on the earnings that are left after deduction. Which means the gov't does not give you the full amount of an expense off your tax bill.
It makes it less expensive to incur certain business expenses as an incentive to do things that are good for your business. If your business does better, you have more revenues from which the gov't can collect taxes. The assumption being that a small amount spent on being nice to a customer leads sales that are larger than the amount you spent on being nice.
Finally, we need to cut this runaway spending so our politicians don't feel the need for collecting all these taxes in the first place.
And simplify this insane tax system that, when tested, no tax preparer ever comes up with the same answers for. |
|
Agreed, SHub, both with your prescription for government and your characterization of the reasons for business deductions. I'm not especially optimistic about the prospect of this government being reigned in, because I don't believe our fellow voters have the will to do so, but I agree that it must be done.
As an aside and for anyone interested, the lawyers I mentioned in my last post were Bill and Hillary Clinton. It's old news, but here's the story from CNN:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/moneymag_archive/19 94/04/01/88775/index.htm
So, it's definitely true that some people abuse deductions. It's just that some of them go on to be president, while others get audited. |
|