About the same as a month ago. Down $25 from the peak a couple weeks ago.

 

Filled up yesterday, at $5.09/gal, eleven cents cheaper than over the weekend. $1.01 more than my fill at the same Costco in early March.

 

The problem with an excise tax is lower income people have a larger percentage of their income that goes to things that would be subject to an excise tax, so it still shifts tax burden to lower income folks vs higher income folks.

Huh? What does that have to do with what we are talking about?

I'm in the real estate business, remember?

If penthouses go vacant, they will be utilized in a way that brings revenue...meaning they will be broken up and sold at prices where people will buy them. The billionaires don't need you to worry about them

We've discussed this. I'm not going to overpay taxes, my pittance of tax revenue isn't going to change anything...but if everybody across the board had to pay...that would be different.

Because they have no income.



Some big ones off the top of my head are the many ways we can shield income from taxation. The ability to take income as K1 vs W2, the ability to use LLCs and S Corps to shield income, the ability to use unrealized capital gains in stock in lieu of income. The ability to then borrow against that wealth vs using those funds so as never to realize any capital gains from that income. The ability for small business owners to use tax structures designed for big businesses, like 179 deductions designed for equipment and work vehicles to write off Escalades...or being able to set up an LLC with your wife as a member and write off all your travel and restaurant expenses. The ability to pay your children just enough so as not to trigger them to need to file returns but allow you to avoid taxation on that income without it ever leaving your household. The ease of being able to own multiple homes in multiple states and file where it is the most advantageous.

This is all how I can make 5 times what my office admin does and pay less than she does in taxes.

 

Not exactly true. This includes people who make so little they don't have to pay, and/or those that have kids and use credits to minimize their burden to zero... not to mention those that get a surplus back.

 

These are very poor people is my point.

You should be more upset at what I pay in taxes lol.

 

The income is still being taxed, it's not being shielded. There's an argument to be made about limiting SE tax exposure but the income tax is still being paid.

This one is the closest to a loophole, and I could agree with imposing rules to crack down on abuse, such as eliminating the stepped up basis for inherited assets that secured such loans, or making the loan proceeds themselves taxable under certain circumstances.

I don't agree that Section 179 was meant for large businesses, in fact there are limitations in the law that pretty much only apply to large businesses. That said I'm 100% in favor of cracking down on using Section 179(or bonus depreciation which has been far more common than 179 since 2017) for vehicles that are also used personally. I definitely roll my eyes at some of the things my clients claim are purely business use. For any auto that's also used for personal use, I'd prefer to just allow a mileage deduction for business use miles(and require contemporaneous recordkeeping of business miles).

Simply being in an LLC doesn't make those expenses deductible. They can absolutely be nondeductible(especially the restaurant meals) despite being paid for by an LLC. They still have to be substantiated ordinary and necessary business expenses. If people are deducting personal travel and meals, they're breaking the law, LLC or not. That's not a loophole, that's just lawbreaking.

If you're legitimately having your children do work commensurate to the pay, that's fine. Not a loophole. If they aren't doing work commensurate to the pay, that's just tax fraud, not a loophole. Same principle applies to the homeowner thing. There's actually laws about where your residency is if you own multiple homes. Cheating is just cheating.

Everything above is either an intended outcome of legislation or just wanton lawbreaking, with perhaps the exception of the asset secured loans to avoid realizing gains.

I'll never oppose businesses being able to deduct business expenses. Your taxable income should be your net income after all ordinary and necessary business expenses. A W2 employee doesn't have the deductions a business owner has because they don't have the expenses a business owner has to reach their compensation. Their income is their income. Perhaps Trump repealing the itemized deduction for unreimbursed employee expenses 3 years before a pandemic that redefined working as we know it happened was shortsighted, as more people spent money on home offices, but beyond that I don't think it's unfair or a loophole to deduct the expenses incurred in earning your income and paying taxes on the legitimate net income from a business.

Also the vast majority of my clients are business owners making anywhere from $200k a year to millions a year, including many in professional services such as real estate, legal, medical etc. I don't know of any that are paying less in income tax than their assistants, at least not on an ongoing basis. They might have a few years where they lost money hand over fist(while assistant still gets paid) or they got a massive credit for solar installation or something that brought their tax burden down on a one off basis. But generally they're usually paying far more in taxes than any of their employees.

 

My apologies for interrupting an otherwise focused discussion on gas prices.

 

.....and just like that, dated Brent is back over $100.

 

[quote-FrankReynoldsCPA]Also the vast majority of my clients are business owners making anywhere from $200k a year to millions a year, including many in professional services such as real estate, legal, medical etc. I don't know of any that are paying less in income tax than their assistants, at least not on an ongoing basis. They might have a few years where they lost money hand over fist(while assistant still gets paid) or they got a massive credit for solar installation or something that brought their tax burden down on a one off basis. But generally they're usually paying far more in taxes than any of their employees.[/quote]

My point is there are lots of ways we can shield income from taxation that people with less income don't have available to them. Everything I do is totally legal, its structured in such a way that makes it legal. My kids can be used in an ad or on a website and get paid. My wife is involved in my business and thus meals and such are business meals. These things are the intended outcome of legislation, the legislators want people like me and those much wealthier and higher income than I am to have these benefits...thats part of the problem. You're likely not as aggressive as my tax people, or the tax people a lot of high income and wealthy people have.

Bear in mind when I say my office administrator's tax burden, she makes $100k.

 

Shocker!

 

Lol why? Good for you (seriously) and it’s not my business anyway.

 

Then why worry about lower income people not paying taxes?

 

semantically, a tax credit isn't "paid for" by government as in money paid out, it means LESS TAX REVENUE for the government, which ultimately means more government DEBT, since governments don't seem to care about debt. (adding a trillion every quarter now... only a matter of time).

you're forgetting that property tax revenue to the city will plummet. then they'll care.

in theory. but condos costing 10m+ don't sell that easy.

lol

false dichotomy. companies are people and successful companies end up being run by billionaires.

i'll take things that will never happen for $200, alex.

half of u.s. adults pay no federal income tax and most of those get REFUNDS despite paying no taxes, so we already have a convoluted version of universal basic income (ubi).

if they did switch to a consumption based tax only instead of income tax, capital gains, and all the million loopholes, there would still be tax 'credits', refunds for low income people, and a large standard deduction.

one MAJOR problem i have with social security is it's only paid into up to a very low cap of income. so people making tons of money don't contribute even remotely enough.

 

So are you also against tax cuts? Because they mean LESS TAX REVENUE for the government, which ultimately means more government DEBT,

It won't.

Hence why developers will break them up or design buildings with properties that cost $2M or $3M or $5m or whatever they can sell.

Companies are not people lol. More people are employed by small business than big business in the US, and the small business owners that employ them (like me) are not billionaires.

Agree 100%.

 

Never said I was worried about anyone, and I'm not even really against it. I'm talking brokkkkke people with lowwwww paying jobs that still work 40hrs (for example).