Honest question......Do you take deductions on your taxes?
If so, why?
If not, why not?
Romney wrote off $77,000 for his dancing horse.
How is that even possible?
Yes, we qualify to take deductions and yes we do (mortgage interest, state taxes, charitable gifts would be the biggest 3 deductions that we take).
We take them because they are legal and we are entitled to do so. I don't think that it actually reduces our federal/state taxes that much; it doesn't push us into a lower bracket, I know that.
I would prefer to have a simpler tax process that doesn't require on keeping track of these things.
I do. I write off the interest on my student loans. Why? Becuase I am paying "extra". It's my reward for helping out the federal government for those who aren't paying. You're welcome fellow students!
What esh said--those are the only ones I take; however, I do not deduct all of my charitable donations.
Rob--I am glad you are working hard to honor your debt.
When I worked for the Department of Justice there was an employee whose duties were dedicated to collecting student loans.
That employee and friend is still there, thirty + years later. The only difference is now she has a larger staff to prosecute non payment of loans. She's nearing retirement!
Yes, I do pay taxes - on a larger percentage of my income than Mitt Romney, and I take the legally allowed deductions - home mortgage, charitable, state taxes. I also have deductions from my salary for Medicare and Social Security. All I have is my meager salary, no investments or dancing horses. Nothing off-shore.
I believe that taxes are the very reasonable price we pay for living in the US, with all it's warts, in the 21st Century.
I, too, wish it was simpler, a flat tax, so that Mitt and I pay the same percentage tax on our income, for example.
"Posted by Roughseas none (My Page) on
Tue, Sep 18, 12 at 10:21
Romney wrote off $77,000 for his dancing horse.
How is that even possible?"
That's wonderful....but doesn't answer the question, does it?
Did you take deductions?....Yes or No.
esh_ga, rob333, et. al.
So......you willingly take deductions when it's not required by the government......is that correct?
According to Harry Reid, paying taxes is patriotic. If this is true, how can one be a patriot while taking deductions?
how can romney be patriotic?
I dont' know! He pays less taxes that the 47% he despises
Why would deductions be REQUIRED by the government?
Answer the question yourself - do you take deductions on your taxes?
And did you set up this whole question just so you could bash Harry Reid's statement?
I'm a small hedge fund manager, work out of my home, managing $3 billion of other peoples' money. I charge a flat 2% fee on assets, so $60 million a year of earned income, and then I get 20% of the profits the fund makes. Last year, the fund did well with currency exchange derivatives, making a 12% return, so I made $360 million on carried interest, which I only had to pay 15% Federal income tax on.
And ya know what? I went ahead and converted the $60 million I made as earned income, which should have been taxed at 35%, converted into shares of the fund which I could declare as carried interest as well. Now that may be illegal, but nobody has taken a case to court yet, but I can pay an army of tax attorneys to fight it if it comes to that.
One trick I like is taking shares of the fund as an IRA - since I run the fund, I can fix the value, and then sit back and watch that baby grow tax free- its worth $100 million now.
Then I try to put as much money as I can in the Caymans, set up trust funds for my wife and kids, use every imaginable deduction I can think of, my returns are several hundred pages long. Biggest deduction is the tithe to the church.
So what were you asking about patriotism?
yes he did esh...
too funny ,romney blew it for him
"Posted by esh_ga z7 GA (My Page) on
Tue, Sep 18, 12 at 11:02
Why would deductions be REQUIRED by the government? "
They're not, which is exactly my point.
"Answer the question yourself - do you take deductions on your taxes? "
"And did you set up this whole question just so you could bash Harry Reid's statement?"
No, not quite.
Not quite? Why then?
Who are you trying to set up and bash?
i find it amusing that he wants tax info from those NOT running for president
I agree with mom, you seem only to have asked the question to bash.
If you don't agree with what I qualified my statement, too bad. It's not your call to make. I'm still helping the government, and I sure as heck pay income and social security taxes all year long. I also pay sales tax all year long, even on groceries. But then, so do all Tennesseans, even those paid wages under the table.
Are you saying you pay 100%/donate all of your income to help out all year long?
You forgot one part of your question:
Why do you take deductions?
"Posted by chase z6 (My Page) on
Tue, Sep 18, 12 at 11:12
This is no different from what Romney does!"
"There is a huge difference between using the tax code to your advantage AND being "victims" who think they are "entitled" ".
How? The end result is the same.
You take deductions, No? I see no difference. The amount maybe, but not the intent.....or the result.
If you take deductions, how are you any different than Romney?
Or for that matter, how are you different than anyone else that takes deductions?
I can easily argue till the cows come that you are victimizing people just as much as anyone else that takes deductions.
Do you think that taking legal deductions means you don't pay any taxes?
The post was clearly a set up for something. Still waiting for the punch line. I'm sure it will be hysterical.
I think that's the point. There is nothing wrong with taking legitimate tax deductions. So why does Romney criticize and belittle those who do exactly what he does?
when you write the tax deductions to your benefit & tothe detriment of your country ,you should be criticized.
the "moochers" are people like romney .
I haven't done deductions in years. I don't try to nickle & dime it to reduce tax on interest.
Do people here really criticize Romney for taking legitimate deductions? Is that what you think?
Or do people criticize him for taking his money offshore so that he can AVOID paying taxes? And for supporting tax treatments on some types of income to allow people like him to AVOID paying taxes?
I think there's a real difference.
add......The problem of not releasing his tax returns to confirm what and how many deductions he applies to lessen his tax liability.
I do not think you have many here think his deductions are the biggest problem. It is the what, and how much proof I want to see.
demi, was that a "me too" response? Gee, I thought you were critical of those types of responses.
esh - exactly!
Link please where Romney criticized and belittled people
taking legitimate tax deductions.
In those exact words please.
No, it wasn't talking about someone else, Jill.
My comment was agreeing with the point that was made.
There is a difference, if you aren't so quick to try to find a reason to "get me" and actually think about it.
Why are you so quick on the draw to make these comments to me, jillinnj?
I don't know you and don't recall responding to any of your posts when you only give your opinion about a topic by harassing you and calling you out for what you post and speculating why you post.
You love me, you really love me ! (Sally Field)
You mean like this --
Posted by jillinnj (My Page) on Mon, Sep 17, 12 at 16:02
I totally agree Kate.
To which you replied:
Posted by demifloyd 8 (My Page) on Mon, Sep 17, 12 at 16:06
Me too me too posts!~
So, when I agree with Kate's (or anyone's) point, it's a "me too" post.
But, when you agree with someone's post, it's that you are agreeing with their point.
OK, got it.
Perhaps you haven't heard about the video released in which he is discussing the 47% that don't pay federal taxes because of their legitimate deductions exempt them from doing so:
In the footage, taped with a hidden camera, Romney argued nearly half of Americans will vote for President Barack Obama because they rely on government support, made apparent jokes about wishing he had Latino heritage, and talks about a Chinese factory his former firm purchased.
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what," Romney says in one clip. "There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent on government, who believe that, that they are victims, who believe that government has the responsibility to care for them. Who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing."
Adding to his argument about entitlement, Romney said his "job is not to worry about those people."
"I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives," he added.
So what he is saying is that people that take enough deductions to exempt them from paying taxes don't take "personal responsibility and care for their lives".
That seems pretty critical and belittling to ME.
Here is a link that might be useful: Comments at fund raiser
"If you take deductions, how are you any different than Romney?"
Weeeeeell, he's a millionaire who can afford all kinds of tax attorneys that find creative ways to pay less in taxes. He can also afford to set up all kinds of tax havens, offshore accounts, blind trusts that sort of thing. His position also allows him to take greater risk when nibbling around the edges of the tax law. Who knows, he may even have connections that will get him an amnesty for not paying taxes.
Me? I sit there with my turbo-tax and do the best I can.
Oh! That and I don't happen to be running for president.
What I don't understand, is that knowing you'd be running for President for years ahead of time, why didn't he transfer his millions in his Swiss and Cayman Islands accounts into good ol' American, long-interest bonds? Obviously he's that desperate to become President...this is his second attempt after all. The scrutiny would have been much less intense and he would have appeared to be patriotic.
I think he just wanted his cake and wanted to eat it too...and is arrogant enough to think he can get away with it.
Me too, me too!!!! Nothing honest about this post.
I believe he truly does not understand how this comes across to the average American. He has never, not for one moment of his life, had to wonder how he would pay for something. Never had to wonder how he would pay for a house...or a car (or multiples in his case)...or his kids' educations...or anything else that most people have to worry and think about. Nor did he ever have to sacrifice anything to be able to pay for those things. He just cannot understand what it's like.
But, what I don't understand is how his advisors did not tell him years ago to move that money back here. Did they tell him that and he ignored them? Or did they not tell him that for some reason?
Well like everything in life if you read a post by Labrea don't you expect typo's & vitriol perhaps a gay issue or 2.
I'm not suggesting the post was dishonest I merely am vigilant based on previous history with the poster & a culture that tells me that the introduction of honest as a preconditioning softening up term, word expression asks that you search carefully for the hook before chowing down.
If legally allowed, Why would you not take deductions?
I take the standard deduction. I dont believe in taking Charitable deductions because when you do it isnt charity any more because you are shifting your costs to tax payers.
I once knew a man -a realty broker- who managed his whole life based on not paying taxes. He didn't do anything unless he could take a tax break on it and clearly thought people were crazy who for instance used their cabin crusier when they were in the mood instead of renting it out most of the time so you could depreciate it as a business expense. An insane way to live if you ask me.
When it is legal to deduct the expenses of a Dancing horse we have to ask ourselves who is running the hen house?
An insane way to live if you ask me.
Not to a Republican.
We take every deduction we are entitled to. It is smart personal financial planning to do so. Charitable deductions are allowed because charities petitioned the governments to allow the deductions to encourage people to donate. If donations were not tax deductible people would not give.
Governments are a business. They have income in, which your taxes are a part of, and expenditures out. They know within a few million dollars how much they will be giving out in tax returns and they know what each and every deduction is going to cost them. Those costs are included in your taxable rate.
If their income falls (they, like all of us, were hit hard during the economic downturn. Investment return on their portfolios were decimated, when people's income falls so do the taxes paid, when retail sales fall so do sales tax revenues) they will cut expenditures, for eg salaries, jobs, work projects, or they will increase the tax rates.
They don't set up a new deduction, or maintain a current deduction without knowing how much it is going to cost them. To not take the deductions if they are legal and you are entitled to them, while perhaps on some level is laudable, is also shortchanging your own wallet.
"That seems pretty critical and belittling to ME."
Talking about the fund raiser Esh linked to above. I didn't have a problem with the speech. Call a spade a spade. If you object to my use of that word, consult lily/marquest.
Posted by blfenton 10 (My Page) on Tue, Sep 18, 12 at 13:08
"If legally allowed, Why would you not take deductions?"
The dems object because Romney did it; simple as that, Fenton.
The dems object because Romney did it
Show me anywhere on this forum that someone objected because Romney took a DEDUCTION (other than that horse one which frankly they were just making fun of).
People are objecting to other tax maneuvers, but not deductions.
Call a spade a spade.
I understand that to mean that you agree with his comments that people that take legal deductions don't take "personal responsibility and care for their lives" when it means they had enough deductions to reach zero tax liability. If they take deductions but don't reach zero tax liability then for some reason THEY'RE ok.
elvis you remind me of a secretary that worked in my office. She would read a memo backwards to proof read but if we asked her to remember a memo to retrieve or the need to understand the memo she did not have a clue. Because she did not read the content to get an understanding.
Try reading the response for understanding. Here is a hint you start with the first word of Lily/marquest responses " because Romney did it;" is not the reason. We both have expressed our reasons. You are aware we are two different people right?
You are kidding, right?
If it wasn't "because Romney did it", then why not spend as much time and energy with this info.
Romney is just one taking advantage of tax loops.
Congress is eat up with the pratice.
Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, continue to make much of the refusal of Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential nominee, to release more than two yearsÃ¯Â¿Â½ worth of tax returns.
It is all a red herring. The key to bringing fairness to our tax laws would be for all 535 members of Congress -- including Reid -- to release their returns.
One thing that congressional tax records can tell us is how many members of the House and Senate benefit from the tax breaks they enact. To take one example, if you own stock outside of your retirement account, then you are eligible for the preferential rate of 15 percent. But if your income is mostly from wages or from the amounts drawn from your retirement account, then your tax rate can be as high as 35 percent. While fewer than one in five Americans have incomes eligible for the 15 percent rate, almost nine in 10 senators do.
This information isnÃ¯Â¿Â½t easy to obtain. I had to go through every senatorÃ¯Â¿Â½s financial-aid disclosure form found on OpenSecrets.org and check for stock ownership that wasnÃ¯Â¿Â½t in retirement accounts. It was a painstaking process, which may understate things because assets owned by members of Congress that are held in blind trusts arenÃ¯Â¿Â½t required to be included in their financial-disclosure forms.
Democrats and Republicans in Congress do nothing to make our laws fairer for the average taxpayer. If the lawmakers were required to release their returns, would they be more likely to take action? The next step is up to you. The American public must demand not only RomneyÃ¯Â¿Â½s tax records, but the returns of each senator and representative. When members of Congress understand that in order to keep their jobs they must put the financial interests of their constituents above their own, we will get the type of tax system that we deserve.
I would love to see the tax returns of all our elected officials. Let's see where they are getting their income from and how much they are hiding, how much they are paying ... yes!
Nope. House is paid for. Income is ok. Although mine could be better. I'm semi-disabled (thanks to working 2 jobs simulaneously, or going to college and working full time), but am not asking for any help. I work p-time NOW.
We give directly to people who need it. Do not collect anything from the government. Never tried.
However, Romney's Hilter-like mentality is NOT what WE in this household want. We are not happy with weak Obama (he cannot get anything passed, or is too weak to stand up to Nazi GOP), either. Also, his stimulus packages were WRONG.....
Notto could you please do us all a favor and loose the Natzi rhetoric. It does nothing to add to your argument and in fact causes most of us to discount all that you say.
Sorry Chase, I didn't know that you voted for a US president.
This IS my country and I don't want it to be "hijacked" by Romney views....if that's ok with YOU, Chase ;)
What has my comments got to do with being able to vote? I am simply telling you that your constant references to Hitler are tedious and will cause people to discount what you have to say.
Trust me my worst nightmare is Romney as President so I feel it is really important to articulate the reasons why he does not deserve to be President in a way that engages serious debate. This Natzi stuff just puts you into a box similar to the right wing nutbars that use inflammatory language....but carry on as you will.
Wow - did not realize that us non-Americans were unwelcome here. I thought that this was an open forum and that all opinions, agree or disagree, were able to be freely shared. I did not realize that there were "This is my country..." rules here and that the rest of the world was unwelcome.
People who, in this day, use nazi references scare me way more than Romney as President.
And I will bow out of any threads where I see this being spouted.
Posted by blfenton 10 (My Page) on Tue, Sep 18, 12 at 22:59
"...did not realize that us non-Americans were unwelcome here. I thought that this was an open forum and that all opinions, agree or disagree, were able to be freely shared. I did not realize that there were "This is my country..." rules here and that the rest of the world was unwelcome."
I think you know better than that, Fenton. But unless it's your goal to offend, I would avoid statements like this:
Posted by chase z6 (My Page) on Tue, Sep 18, 12 at 22:10
"This Natzi stuff just puts you into a box similar to the right wing nutbars that use inflammatory language..."
notto's posts are very disturbing to me, and so was chase's; both were inflammatory and without any good purpose.
We take the deductions we're entitled to. We try to be good stewards of what we're left with. I think it's what responsible people do. It's part of taking responsibility for your own future.
"I take the standard deduction. I dont believe in taking Charitable deductions because when you do it isnt charity any more because you are shifting your costs to tax payers."
I don't understand. You take the standard deduction but you have other options? If so, do you take the option that leaves you with more money...or with less?
I do not take the charitable deductions. it's not charity if it's a tax deduction.
I took itemized just once back before we had paid off our mortgage, but the crunched numbers were so close to the personal deductions that I never bothered with the extra paper work again. We're not rich, just frugal, and allowing the Govn' a few extra bucks doesn't give us heartburn.
Speaking of tax deductions - Do you realize the Romney's plan is for people to pay out of pocket for healthcare and take the medical deductions off their taxes? So in effect he wants US taxpayers to subsidize individuals' healthcare costs.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has a prescription for controlling soaring costs within the $2.8 trillion U.S. healthcare system, partly by making consumers pay more of their own medical bills.
Romney's vow to repeal and replace President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul has played prominently in the campaign, even as Romney has offered few details about his alternative.
But as he prepares to face Obama in their first presidential debate on Wednesday, Romney is giving a few hints. The former Massachusetts governor's advisers say he would accelerate the use of high-deductible insurance plans that offer lower premiums but require beneficiaries to pay thousands of dollars more in out-of-pocket expenses than they would face under conventional coverage.
Romney's overriding aim is to create a much bigger retail market in healthcare, with transparency on pricing and services, more flexible insurance pools and interstate insurance markets.
That would allow consumers to choose up front what products and services to buy and from whom, according to the Romney campaign. But consumers would cover most routine medical expenses themselves, including annual check-ups, with assistance from health savings accounts and new tax breaks intended to align the private markets for group and individual insurance that cover more than 160 million people.
Here is a link that might be useful: source
But consumers would cover most routine medical expenses themselves, including annual check-ups
Does he even have a clue what 'routine medical expenses' cost?
When you pay cash for a $12 million house and then after these elections are over, going to tear it down and build a new, big, bright one....I'm thinking NO.
Wow, sounds like a great plan. Let me see if I have this right...the consumer pays for their checkups and routine medical care out of pocket, and has an insurance policy with an enormous (ie, unaffordable for average Americans) deductible. And that will provide health care for the large numbers of Americans that don't have it. And save us all money too. OK, got it.
I sure hope this is what he says tonight in the debate. He really must think people are stupid. Or, more likely, has no clue what life is like for those that were not born wealthy and don't have multiple millions to fall back on.
Well the part that I think people aren't getting is that people can "afford" this health care version that he proposes because they can DEDUCT their expenses from their TAXES. So the taxpayers are SUBSIDIZING people's healthcare.
HAH! and that would mean 'the government' paying for womens birthcontrol-how funny!
But only so far what with his "bucket filling" deductions idea.
"Does he even have a clue what 'routine medical expenses' cost?"
Hey, just borrow it from your parents, tack it on to that collage loan.
Mitt Romney / Paul Ryan 2012
Unlike Banks, Parents Eventually Die
Yes, I always take deduction on taxes to reduce my tax bills. If you're involved in estates, trusts and investments, or if you have significant job-related expenses, it's worth your time to investigate a bit further in order to minimize the tax bills.
Here is a link that might be useful: Chartered Accountants Toronto