Page 2 of 4

Re: Should Make a Lively Discussion

Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2012 11:28 am
by fickman
2firfun50 wrote:
gdanaher wrote:Not all legal behavior is ethically correct behavior. And this applies to all political perspectives.
You get it. One set of rules for everyone.
You can take advantage of the same set of rules. I see no ethical dilemma in using a legal means of reducing one's tax burden, if the allegation is even true.

Is it "legal but immoral" if somebody sets up their business as an LLC to avoid personal liability and protect their house or savings?

Is it "legal but immoral" to carry a net operating loss forward or backward to lower another year's taxes?

Is it "legal but immoral" to sit on a $60 billion fortune for one entire year (no income, no investment, no interest) to avoid the U.S. productivity tax?

Is it "legal but immoral" to be a middle-income Joe and use children, 401k investments, home interest payments, and healthcare spending accounts to lower one's taxable income for the year?

I'm all for a simplified tax code with a lower rate and fewer deductions, but while we have the current system in place, it'd be foolish not to use it as written.

Re: Should Make a Lively Discussion

Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2012 11:55 am
by Kythas
geekwagun wrote:You really need to ask yourself this "Am I better off than I was 4 years ago?" Because I am not.
Nor am I. I'm a consultant, also, and while I'm an employee and receive a salary, the bulk of my income comes from billable hours to clients. My paychecks consist, if I work an entire month at 40 hours per week, 1/3 salary and 2/3 project "bonus".

Due to the economy, I have been living only on salary this year. My company has had to lay off all consultants other than me and one other. My utilization rate this year is only 27% - that means all this year I've only billed out 27% of my available hours. Basically, I've worked just over 2 months this year. My pay this year is down a little over 60% of what it was same time last year.

Before you say that it must be nice sitting at home and still drawing a salary, imagine how your life would change if your income were suddenly slashed by 60%. Things I could easily afford last year I no longer can. My car payment, affordable when I bought it two years ago, has now become an expensive burden. My fiancee has become an extreme couponer. We now rarely go out to eat, which diminishes the income at the restaurants and the waiters at those restaurants. We've had to cut all sorts of things out of our budget that, just one year ago, were easily affordable. We're about to drop DirecTV and get an antennae for the TV and a Roku box. I'm able to keep my head above water as it stands, but just barely. In short, our quality of life has seriously diminished in the last year.

Add to that the fact that prices for everything are up across the board. Effectively, higher prices of things such as groceries, gas, electricity, etc. also act as a pay cut as it leaves you with less disposable income after paying for them. For example, four years ago I budgeted $200/mo for gasoline. Today my gasoline budget is $450/mo. I'm not buying any more gas today than I did then - if anything, I buy less. But when you go from paying $26 to fill your tank four years ago to $50 today, that's a pretty big hit to the pocketbook.

A gallon of milk cost $2.16/gallon in 2008. Today the same gallon of milk costs $4.59.
Ground beef: $3.68/lb in 2008, $7.98/lb today.

I'm scared to see what prices will be after this years drought wiping out the corn harvest. With 40% of corn going to ethanol due to government mandate, there won't be enough to feed livestock. Because of this, many ranchers are taking their livestock in to slaughter early, which will mean a short term drop in beef prices. But what about next year when the cows that would have gone to slaughter in the spring won't be because they're all going now? Plus, the feed will become far more expensive due to the corn shortage. Watch for an explosion in beef prices next year. Also watch for gas prices to rise due to a rise in ethanol prices. Again, 40% of our corn MUST go to ethanol production. With the scarcity of the corn harvest this year, that will increase the price of everything made with corn and corn product (high fructose corn syrup, anyone?).

All this is because of the current state of the economy. I'm a firm believer in supply side economics, as history and my experiences have shown them to work. This is why it's so important to elect Romney this November; as a supply side guy, he's the only one who will do what is necessary to promote our country's economic engine and get people working again. We need to get government out of the way of We the People.

Re: Should Make a Lively Discussion

Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2012 12:14 pm
by 74novaman
2firfun50 wrote:
gdanaher wrote:Not all legal behavior is ethically correct behavior. And this applies to all political perspectives.
You get it. One set of rules for everyone.
As Charles had said...this is all you have to say?

Plenty of posts you could have responded to if you truly wanted a "lively discussion" as mentioned in the thread title.

I think I"ll sit this one out. I don't think you're actually interested in what anyone else has to say. :???:

Re: Should Make a Lively Discussion

Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2012 12:39 pm
by SewTexas
Kythas,
We dropped DirectTV and got a Roku with Netflix, Hulu(which honestly we use a few times a month) and AcornTV,(my husband and my favorite channel!) and we are completely happy. just get a decent antenna that's the secret, we haven't got a good one yet. :???:

Re: Should Make a Lively Discussion

Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2012 12:47 pm
by karder
RoyGBiv wrote:I am in favor of making use of EVERY LEGAL avenue to reduce my taxes. The government, all parties at every level, has proven it cannot spend my tax money wisely, so I have no reservations whatsoever about using every loophole for which I am eligible.
:iagree: Paying taxes is a legal requirement, not a moral requirement. Render unto Caesar. Any businessman who pays more taxes than what is legally required does not have the judgment to be president. If he has extra money to give to a good cause, I would suggest that he find a worthy charity as the government is not one.

Re: Should Make a Lively Discussion

Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2012 12:56 pm
by 2firfun50
Teamless wrote:
gdanaher wrote:Not all legal behavior is ethically correct behavior. And this applies to all political perspectives.
So if a person is being legal, but maybe not moral (and remember, "morality" is in the eye of the person, not in "all people"), then they should be shunned?
And they shouldn't be smart enough to know the in's and out's of the laws? And if they are smart enough, you should punish them?

I have an idea, make the laws without loopholes, until then, well, I cant see punishing them.

Good point, loopholes fixed, then we're on a level playing field. No need for punishment for past actions, just play by the new rules.
However, quit defending the current rules when they obviously aren't working. It might also be a good idea to quit blaming those who were not in power when the old rules were written.

"Lets think about this in relation to our carrying concealed weapons, legally, in the Great State of Texas.
I walk up to a business, they have a gun buster sign, or an all 4413.ee sign, and I walk right on by the sign into the business carrying my concealed weapon, still legally.
Is that a loophole?"
Is that morally OK, even thought it is legally OK?[/quote]

To answer your question about concealed carry: Since you referenced a business, and not a government building, my answer is that it is ethically wrong to enter with your weapon. Why do I answer that way? You understand the intent of the sign and the right of the business owner to post his business. If you enter, you have violated that owner's right, irregardless whether the sign meets the pure letter of the law. You may never be noticed, but you should know in your heart that you just did something unethical.

Re: Should Make a Lively Discussion

Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2012 1:11 pm
by G26ster
2firfun50 wrote:
Good point, loopholes fixed, then we're on a level playing field.
Does the "level playing field" include the 47% of working folks that pay no federal income tax at all? To be level, it must.

Re: Should Make a Lively Discussion

Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2012 1:47 pm
by GeekwithaGun
being sucked in...

2firfun50 wrote: Good point, loopholes fixed, then we're on a level playing field. No need for punishment for past actions, just play by the new rules.
However, quit defending the current rules when they obviously aren't working. It might also be a good idea to quit blaming those who were not in power when the old rules were written.
Who is saying the rules are not working? The people who look at the wealthy with disdain and say they are "evil" for being wealthy or because they use the tax code and rules to their advantage? Would you rather the wealthy give all their posessions and wealth to the government to dole out to those who "need" it? If all the money and possesions were taken from the "wealthy" would that make you happy? Also, who wrote the "old rules" and when the democrats were in control the WH, House and Sentate, why didn't they "fix the loopholes"?

When my accountant does my business and personal tax returns, I have them look for any and all deductions that I can legally take to reduce the amount of taxes I have to pay. I take the mortgage interest deduction because I own a home; I have dependants so I take that deduction; all my business expenses that can be deducted I take, the charitable giving deductions (which by the way only 50% of the total giving was deductable for the past few years). Anything and everythign that is in the tax code is looked at and if I can take I will, there is no "moral" conflict, the law is the law and I follow the law. To really "fix" the loopholes, change the tax system to a fair system that is fair to EVERYONE. Everyone in this country who works and earns a living should contribute to the system. An across the board tax rate of x% for all earners would make more sense and simplify the rules - I am in favor of eliminating all the deductions for a lower tax rate across the board.

Don't we all want to earn what we have and keep what we earn? There is so much bloat and waste at the federal level it is mind blowing, the federal government MUST stop spending money they do not have and cut programs which have been proven time and again that DO NOT WORK. Did you know there has not been a federal budget passed by both houses in the past 3 1/2 years, yet they continue to spend more and more on programs that are failed or even obsolete.

The liberal politicians who believe the federal government should take care of everyone and want to increase spending on these programs are always decrying the "draconian cuts" of the programs they favor when in fact the "cuts" are simply a reduction in the automatic increase of the budgeted amount from the last year. So if last year had $100,000,000.00 for a program and the automatic increase was 2% the next budget would have $102,000,000.00 and if there was a proposal to only spend $101,000,000.00 that would be a "draconian cut" when in FACT it is still an increase of $1 million and not a CUT at all.

I have family that thinks this way, so we debate this constantly. My position will always be on the side of a limited federal government and to put more power back in the hands of the states.

This will definately be an interesting election to say the least.

Re: Should Make a Lively Discussion

Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2012 2:07 pm
by 2firfun50
74novaman wrote:
2firfun50 wrote:
gdanaher wrote:Not all legal behavior is ethically correct behavior. And this applies to all political perspectives.
You get it. One set of rules for everyone.
As Charles had said...this is all you have to say?

Plenty of posts you could have responded to if you truly wanted a "lively discussion" as mentioned in the thread title.

I think I"ll sit this one out. I don't think you're actually interested in what anyone else has to say. :???:
I'm very interested in what others have to say. I haven't been able to respond more because I've been working.

In response to my sources: I clearly posted the links to Yahoo news by the way of ABC News, not Gawker. I've never been to that site.

I'm a person who really believes in fair play for everyone. When I read the arguements for cutting taxes on investments, or providing favorable tax rates for reinvestment, I envision the gains going back into real investments. Businesses and companies that have the potential to create new American jobs, with good salaries, and good benefits. I'm all on board with that effort. When I see those tax benefits being used to "Invest", and I use that term loosely, in off shore straw companies to dodge the tax man, I must speak out against such actions. When the ethics of a person allows that type of action, regardless of the legal situation, I consider that person unethical and untrustworthy. So Mitt, if you want my support, bring the money home and put it back to work. Take some real chances. Change the law to help prevent such behavior in the future. Put people in jail who break the law. Remember white collar crime may be the worst of all. By changing the law for the betterment of all, even tho it may negatively impact you personally, you have my full support. Don't give me that "blind trust" stuff. No one but some professional athletes and boxers go that way. They usually end up broke. You know what is going on with your own money, if you don't, why should you be trusted with the people's money?

I was a long time hard core republication until the day the 2nd Iraqi invasion started. I just knew Dick Armey and Newt wre going to save the country. The flat tax was coming and fairness and prosperity would reign for all. But on that fateful day, I was in a west Texas hospital waiting room while my mother in law was in surgery. It came on the news that the invasion had started. I made a supporting comment about the invasion to an old cowboy sitting near me. His reply sticks with me to this very day. He said, "I hope they were smart enough to bring a throw down."

Re: Should Make a Lively Discussion

Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2012 2:48 pm
by Teamless
2firfun50 wrote: but you should know in your heart that you just did something unethical.
I do not see it that way at all
I see it that "I am following the letter of the law".
Simple.
The law is out there should someone care to read it.
If someone else follows the letter of law but doesn't meet the 'morality barometer', well, I may not like what they did, but I cannot fault them for the law that they are following.
2firfun50 wrote:just play by the new rules
Until there are 'new rules', you have to play by the existing ones.

Re: Should Make a Lively Discussion

Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2012 3:05 pm
by gdanaher
Political candidates are always saying something about understanding how the regular guy feels, how they feel our pain. The last POTUS I can think of who was close to being a regular guy was Truman. Maybe Eisenhower as well but by the time he took the oath he had been an anointed one for some time. There haven't been may presidents since then who really feel our pain. Most of them make an effort to try to appear as if they feel our pain though-it's just good politics for folks to think the candidate pumps his own gas and knows how much a package of hot dogs costs. Sometimes politicians need to try to distance themselves from their actual history. I can think of a number of guys who did that. Clinton could sell ice in Alaska with his vocal tones and facial expressions, and could anyone else ask what the definition of the word "is" is?? Reagan could make you WANT illegal alien amnesty. Sometimes they just have that talent. These days though, Romney is a proud, rich man. Nothing wrong with that. But he wants to be president. It's hard for some voters to relate and warm up to the guy. For better or worse, those comments about firing people, being the nexus of Obamacare, for apparently offloading fortunes to off shore accounts just don't make average, or even above average voters get all warm and fuzzy about the guy. Romney reminds me of an early Nixon. He couldn't connect with the populace either, and once in office further distanced himself. I do hope that Romney will read the sale papers from time to time.

Re: Should Make a Lively Discussion

Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2012 3:19 pm
by 2firfun50
geekwagun wrote:
Everyone in this country who works and earns a living should contribute to the system. An across the board tax rate of x% for all earners would make more sense and simplify the rules - I am in favor of eliminating all the deductions for a lower tax rate across the board.

Do you remember the "Contract with America" in 1996? A fair and equitable flat tax was part of the platform. Republicans in control of the legislature and presidency from 2000 to 2006, didn't happen then, won't happen now. I don't have any moral conflict with tax deductions that everyone can participate in either. I have a tremendous problem with those who produce nothing nor provide a beneficial service, but make huge profits by just "moving money" around.

There is so much bloat and waste at the federal level it is mind blowing, the federal government MUST stop spending money they do not have and cut programs which have been proven time and again that DO NOT WORK.

For the federal govenment to stop spending money they do not have, spending must be reduced by a huge amount, some say at least 50 to 60%. On the debt side, when we borrow money, we have to pay it back in a specified manner. The government has been borrowing from the Social Security Trust Fund since Lyndon Johnson to finance wars and pet programs. That borrowed money has no set criteria for repayment. Employers and employees have been paying into that fund since 1939. That fund is owed approximately 27% of the national debt. Social Security is only going broke because the government is not paying what they owe. Since Social security is often referred to as a pension, paragraph 4 of the 14th amendent may apply:

4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.


This will definately be an interesting election to say the least.

Re: Should Make a Lively Discussion

Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2012 3:23 pm
by i8godzilla
My feeling about 535 of them:

Image

If our Congress could get their act together it would matter not who was in the White House.

Re: Should Make a Lively Discussion

Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2012 3:42 pm
by 2firfun50
fickman wrote:
2firfun50 wrote:
gdanaher wrote:Not all legal behavior is ethically correct behavior. And this applies to all political perspectives.
You get it. One set of rules for everyone.
You can take advantage of the same set of rules. I see no ethical dilemma in using a legal means of reducing one's tax burden, if the allegation is even true.

Is it "legal but immoral" if somebody sets up their business as an LLC to avoid personal liability and protect their house or savings?

My Answer: Nope, everyone can do it! Not limited to the investment bankers and such.

Is it "legal but immoral" to carry a net operating loss forward or backward to lower another year's taxes?

My Answer: As long as any legitimate business can do it.

Is it "legal but immoral" to sit on a $60 billion fortune for one entire year (no income, no investment, no interest) to avoid the U.S. productivity tax?

My Answer: You betcha on the immoral part. There isn't anything right about sitting on a $60 billion fortune when someone may be able to make good use of that money putting people to work and provide the owner a fair return. The only thing more worthless than an unloaded gun is lazy money.

Is it "legal but immoral" to be a middle-income Joe and use children, 401k investments, home interest payments, and healthcare spending accounts to lower one's taxable income for the year?

My Answer: No problem, all middle income Joes' have a chance at that one. However watch out for the sky high taxes you will have to pay when you need the money, especially if you are still working.

I'm all for a simplified tax code with a lower rate and fewer deductions, but while we have the current system in place, it'd be foolish not to use it as written.
I agree, the code is wrong. But notice my consistancy in the thread. If everyone can play, its ok. If you need a million and up to play that ain't cool.

Re: Should Make a Lively Discussion

Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2012 3:57 pm
by 2firfun50
2firfun50 wrote:
fickman wrote:
2firfun50 wrote:
gdanaher wrote:Not all legal behavior is ethically correct behavior. And this applies to all political perspectives.
You get it. One set of rules for everyone.
You can take advantage of the same set of rules. I see no ethical dilemma in using a legal means of reducing one's tax burden, if the allegation is even true.

Is it "legal but immoral" if somebody sets up their business as an LLC to avoid personal liability and protect their house or savings?

My Answer: Nope, everyone can do it! Not limited to the investment bankers and such.

Is it "legal but immoral" to carry a net operating loss forward or backward to lower another year's taxes?

My Answer: As long as any legitimate business can do it.

Is it "legal but immoral" to sit on a $60 billion fortune for one entire year (no income, no investment, no interest) to avoid the U.S. productivity tax?

My Answer: You betcha on the immoral part. There isn't anything right about sitting on a $60 billion fortune when someone may be able to make good use of that money putting people to work and provide the owner a fair return. The only thing more worthless than an unloaded gun is lazy money.

Is it "legal but immoral" to be a middle-income Joe and use children, 401k investments, home interest payments, and healthcare spending accounts to lower one's taxable income for the year?

My Answer: No problem, all middle income Joes' have a chance at that one. However watch out for the sky high taxes you will have to pay when you need the money, especially if you are still working.

I'm all for a simplified tax code with a lower rate and fewer deductions, but while we have the current system in place, it'd be foolish not to use it as written.
I agree, the code is wrong. But notice my consistancy in the thread. If everyone can play, its ok. If you need a million and up to play that ain't cool.
One more thing. This "carried interest" ain't cool at all. I can get a lump sum retirement check in the mid 6 figures. The catch, I have to pay 35% up front to use it to start a business. Mister investment banker can pay 15% capital gains on the same check and spend it however they want. Or create a paper company, invest in it and pay no taxes at all. Mister Ryan has reportedly voted against "fixing" this rat hole.